Psychological impact of multigene cancer panel testing in patients with a clinical suspicion of hereditary cancer across Spain

"I don't need any more unknowns hanging over my head": Views of patients with cancer on variants of uncertain significance and low/moderate risk results from genomic sequencing

PURPOSE

We sought to explore patient-reported utility of all types of cancer results from genomic sequencing (GS).

METHODS

Qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews with patients who underwent GS within a trial. Thematic analysis employing constant comparison was used. Two coders coded transcripts, with use of a third coder to resolve conflicts.

RESULTS

25 patients participated: female (22), >50 years (18), European (12), Ashkenazi Jewish (5), Middle Eastern (3), or other ethnicity (5), with breast cancer history (20). Patients' perceptions of the utility of cancer GS results hinged on whether they triggered clinical action. For example, when patients were enrolled into high-risk breast cancer surveillance programs for low/moderate risk breast cancer genes, they perceived the results to be very "useful" and of moderate-high utility. In contrast, patients receiving low/moderate risk or primary variants of uncertain significance results without clinical action perceived results as "concerning," leading to harms, such as hypervigilance about cancer symptoms. Overall, having supportive relatives or providers enhanced perceptions of utility.

CONCLUSION

Patients' perceptions of cancer GS results hinged on whether they triggered clinical management. Consequently, patients who received results without clinical action became hypervigilant, experiencing harms. Our findings call for a need to develop practice interventions to support patients with cancer undergoing GS.

Factors that differentiate cancer risk management decisions among females with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM

PURPOSE

Following disclosure of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in hereditary cancer genes, patients face cancer risk management decisions. Through this mixed-methods study, we investigated cancer risk management decisions among females with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM to understand why some patients follow National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, whereas others do not.

METHODS

Survey and interview data were cross-analyzed using a 3-stage approach. Identified factors were used to conduct coincidence analysis and differentiate between combinations of factors that result in following or not following guidelines.

RESULTS

Of the 13 participants who underwent guideline inconsistent prophylactic surgery, 12 fit 1 of 3 unique patterns: (1) cancer-related anxiety in the absence of trust in care, (2) provider recommending surgery inconsistent with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, or (3) surgery occurring before genetic testing. Two unique patterns were found among 18 of 20 participants who followed guidelines: (1) anxiety along with trust in care or (2) lack of anxiety and no prophylactic surgery before testing.

CONCLUSION

Health care provider recommendations and trust in care may influence whether individuals receive care that is congruent with risk levels conferred by specific genes. Interventions are needed to improve provider knowledge, patient trust in non-surgical care, and patient anxiety.

Role of psychological background in cancer susceptibility genetic testing distress: It is not only about a positive result

Clinical and familial factors predict psychological distress after genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. However, the contribution of an individual's psychological background to such distress is unclear. This study aims to analyze the psychological impact of genetic testing and to identify the profile of individuals at higher risk. This is a longitudinal multicenter study of individuals undergoing genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Demographic, clinical, genetic, familial, and psychological (personality types, cancer worry) characteristics were assessed by validated questionnaires the day of genetic testing. Distress, uncertainty, and positive experience perception (MICRA scale) were evaluated at the results disclosure visit, and 3 and 12 months afterwards. Multivariate analysis was performed. A total of 714 individuals were included. A high neuroticism score, high baseline cancer worry, and a positive genetic test result were independently associated with higher psychological impact (p-value < 0.05). The highest risk profile (10% of the cohort) included women with high level of neuroticism and a positive result. Uncertainty was mainly associated with a high level of neuroticism, regardless of the genetic test result. A holistic approach to personalized germline genetic counseling should include the assessment of personality dimensions.

A qualitative study of unaffected ATM and CHEK2 carriers: How participants make meaning of 'moderate risk' genetic results in a population breast cancer screening trial

Relatively little is known about experiences of individuals with a pathogenic variant in a moderately penetrant breast cancer gene, particularly those without a personal history of cancer. The WISDOM trial is testing a model of risk-based breast cancer screening that integrates genomic (nine genes and polygenic risk) and other risk factors. In the context of an embedded Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) study of WISDOM, we conducted qualitative interviews at two timepoints post-result disclosure with 22 ATM and CHEK2 carriers. Results disclosure and interview recordings were transcribed and analyzed using a grounded theory analysis framework. We found that participants minimized the significance of their results in comparison to BRCA; were surprised but not alarmed by the results in the absence of family history; did not fundamentally change their perception of their breast cancer risk despite the new genomic information; exhibited variable responses to WISDOM's screening and risk reduction recommendations; and shared test results with family but did not strongly encourage cascade testing. Participants viewed the results as having limited utility and responded accordingly. Our study offers important insights into how genetic test results for moderate-risk genes are received, understood, and acted upon in population screening context.

Clinical and psychological implications of secondary and incidental findings in cancer susceptibility genes after exome sequencing in patients with rare disorders

Background/Objectives

Exome sequencing may identify pathogenic variants unrelated with the purpose of the analysis. We investigated the frequency of secondary and incidental findings (SF/IF) in cancer susceptibility genes (CSG), their clinical actionability and the psychological impact in individuals with an SF/IF (cases) compared with individuals tested due to their cancer history (controls).

Methods

This study analysed 533 exomes ordered for non-cancer conditions. Medical records were reviewed for clinical actionability of SF/IF. Psychological impact was analysed using the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale and compared between cases and controls with a propensity score weighting method.

Results

The frequency of SF/IF in CSG was 2.1% (95% CI 1.1% to 3.8%): threeBRCA2, threePMS2, twoSDHB, and one each inBRCA1,MLH1andRAD51C. Among the relatives, 18 were carriers. Twenty enrolled for surveillance, and a neoplasm was diagnosed in 20%: three paragangliomas and one breast cancer. Cases presented higher MICRA mean scores than controls (21.3 vs 16.2 in MICRA total score, 6.3 vs 4.2 in the distress subscale, and 8.3 vs 6.6 in the uncertainty subscale; all p<0.001).

Conclusion

SF/IF in CSG were identified in 2.1% of patients. Despite a numerically higher psychological impact, the identification of SF/IF allowed early detection and cancer prevention in families without cancer history.

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.

Psychological and health behaviour outcomes following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk: a mini-review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge of the genetic mechanisms driving hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) has recently expanded due to advances in gene sequencing technologies. Genetic testing for HBOC risk now involves multi-gene panel testing, which includes well characterized high-penetrance genes (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as moderate- and low-penetrance genes. Certain moderate and low penetrance genes are associated with limited data to inform cancer risk estimates and clinical management recommendations, which create new sources of genetic and clinical uncertainty for patients.

PURPOSE

The aim of this review is to evaluate the psychological and health behaviour outcomes associated with multi-gene panel testing for HBOC risk. The search was developed in collaboration with an Information Specialist (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre) and conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCare, PsycINFO, Epub Ahead of Publication.

RESULTS

Similar to the BRCA1/2 literature, individuals with a pathogenic variant (PV) reported higher levels of testing-related concerns and cancer-specific distress, as well as higher uptake of prophylactic surgery in both affected and unaffected individuals compared to those with variant of uncertain significance (VUS) or negative result. A single study demonstrated that individuals with a PV in a moderate penetrance gene reported higher rates of cancer worry, genetic testing concerns and cancer-related distress when compared to women with high penetrance PV. Analysis of cancer screening and prevention outcomes based upon gene penetrance were limited to two studies, with conflicting findings.

CONCLUSION

The findings in this review emphasize the need for studies examining psychological and health behavior outcomes associated with panel testing to include between group differences based upon both variant pathogenicity and gene penetrance. Future studies evaluating the impact of gene penetrance on patient-reported and clinical outcomes will require large samples to be powered for these analyses given that a limited number of tested individuals are found to have a PV.

Germline variant testing in serrated polyposis syndrome

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is now known to be the commonest polyposis syndrome. Previous analyses for germline variants have shown no consistent positive findings. To exclude other polyposis syndromes, 2019 British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines advise gene panel testing if the patient is under 50 years, there are multiple affected individuals within a family, or there is dysplasia within any of the polyps.

METHODS

A database of SPS patients was established at the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Patients were referred for genetic assessment based on personal and family history and patient preference. The majority were tested for a hereditary colorectal cancer panel including MUTYH, APC, PTEN, SMAD4, BMPR1A, STK11, NTLH1, POLD1, POLE, GREM1 (40-kb duplication), PMS2, and Lynch syndrome mismatch repair genes.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-three patients were diagnosed with SPS based on World Health Organization 2019 criteria between February 2010 and December 2020. The mean age of diagnosis was 54.2 ± 16.8 years. Seventy-three patients underwent genetic testing and 15/73 (20.5%) were found to have germline variants, of which 7/73 (9.6%) had a pathogenic variant (MUTYH n = 2, SMAD4 n = 1, CHEK2 n = 2, POLD1 n = 1, and RNF43 n = 1). Only 60% (9/15) of these patients would have been recommended for gene panel testing according to current BSG guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 20.5% of SPS patients tested were affected by heterozygous germline variants, including previously unreported associations with CHEK2 and POLD1. This led to a change in management in seven patients (9.6%). Current recommendations may miss SPS associated with germline variants, which is more common than previously anticipated.

Assessment of psychosocial difficulties by genetic clinicians and distress in women at high risk of breast cancer: a prospective study

We examined how often genetic clinicians correctly identify psychosocial difficulties in women at high breast cancer risk and explored effects of this assessment and the genetic test result on counselees’ distress. A prospective observational study of counselee–clinician dyads was performed in three French, German and Spanish genetic clinics, involving 709 counselees (participation rate, 83.4%) and 31 clinicians (participation rate, 100%). Counselee–clinician agreement in perceived psychosocial difficulties was measured after the pre-test genetic consultation. Multivariate mixed linear models accounting for clinicians were tested. Predicted distress levels were assessed after the pre- (T1) and post-test result disclosure consultations (T2). Depending on the difficulty domain, clinicians adequately assessed the presence or absence of difficulties in 51% (“familial issues”) to 59% (“emotions”) of counselees. When counselees’ and clinicians’ perceptions disagreed, difficulties were generally underestimated by clinicians. Counselees’ distress levels remained stable from T1 to T2, irrespective of clinicians’ appraisal adequacy, and the genetic test result disclosure. Psychological referral need were found in 20–42% of counselees, more frequently observed for difficulties in the “emotions” domain. Our findings suggest that the genetic test result is a suboptimal indicator for psychological referral. Instead, clinicians should focus on emotions expressed by counselees to appraise their needs for psychological support.

"You Always Have It in the Back of Your Mind"-Feelings, Coping, and Support Needs of Women with Pathogenic Variants in Moderate-Risk Genes for Hereditary Breast Cancer Attending Genetic Counseling in Germany: A Qualitative Interview Study

Hereditary breast cancer accounts for approximately 30% of newly diagnosed breast cancer (BC) cases. Pathogenic variants in moderate-risk BC genes (MBCG) differ from those in high-risk genes in terms of associated cancer risks, affected organs, and available preventive options. Little is known about how MBCG pathogenic variant carriers who have attended post-test genetic counseling perceive their situation, how they cope with their situation, and which support needs they might have. Problem-centered, guided, individual interviews were conducted with twelve women carrying pathogenic variants in MBCG. The interview analysis was based on Mayring’s qualitative content analysis. The women were between 29 and 59 years old and carried pathogenic variants in the risk genes CHEK2 (n = 8), ATM (n = 1), or PALB2 (n = 3). Women reported a wide range of feelings, both positive (relief, calmness) and negative (overwhelm, fear, grief, guilt). All women applied strategies of emotion-focused coping to deal with this lifelong situation. Appraisal and evaluation of the affected mother’s coping might influence the patient’s own behavior and coping style. These results could be used during and after post-test genetic counseling to provide more needs-oriented counseling, and to help women in adjusting to and coping with being a pathogenic variant carrier.

Préoccupations et besoins d’aide psychologiques chez les femmes à risque génétique de cancer du sein ou de l’ovaire : une étude prospective observationnelle en Allemagne, Espagne et France

Objectifs et contexte : L’arrivée des tests de panel de gènes a augmenté la complexité de la communication en consultation d’oncogénétique. Une attention quant à l’impact de cette communication sur les préoccupations et les besoins d’aide psychologique s’avère d’autant plus indispensable. Cette étude vise à en quantifier le type et l’ampleur, avant et après la communication du résultat de test génétique, chez des femmes s’adressant à la consultation d’oncogénétique pour réaliser un test de susceptibilité au cancer du sein ou de l’ovaire en Allemagne, Espagne et France.

Participants et mesures : Parmi les 752 personnes invitées consécutivement à participer à cette étude, 646 (86 %) ― dont 510 (68 %) atteintes d’un cancer du sein―ont répondu à un questionnaire (PAHC (Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer)) portant d’une part sur les préoccupations spécifiques à la démarche en oncogénétique et d’autre part sur leurs besoins d’aide psychologique ; questionnaire proposé après la consultation initiale d’oncogénétique initiale (T1) et, pour 460 (61 %) d’entre elles, deux mois après la communication du résultat du test (T2).

Résultats : Soixante-dix-neuf (17,2 %), 19 (4,1 %), 259 (56,3 %), 44 (9,6 %), 59 (12,8 %) femmes ont reçu respectivement les résultats suivants : un variant pathogène sur BRCA1/2 ou sur autre gène à risque élevé ou modéré, un résultat négatif non informatif, un résultat négatif vrai, ou la présence d’un variant dont la signification clinique est incertaine (VUS). Le type de préoccupations et les besoins d’aide psychologique se sont révélés variables selon les pays. Cependant, globalement, les préoccupations les plus fréquentes (> 70 %) étaient relatives à la perte d’un proche familial par cancer, et les moins fréquentes (< 5 %) relatives au soutien des proches. La plupart de ces préoccupations persistent deux mois plus tard, à la suite du résultat de test génétique. En revanche, le besoin d’aide psychologique a globalement diminué sur le plan statistique, excepté, selon le pays, pour les préoccupations familiales/sociales, les difficultés émotionnelles ou les aspects pratiques.

Conclusions : Dans notre étude portant sur des femmes issues de trois pays européens s’adressant à la consultation oncogénétique en vue de réaliser un test de susceptibilité au cancer du sein ou de l’ovaire, la plupart des préoccupations liées à la situation génétique persistent deux mois après la communication du résultat de test, et les besoins d’aide psychologique se manifestent surtout dans le champ des relations et des émotions.

Cancer Patient Experience of Uncertainty While Waiting for Genome Sequencing Results

There is limited knowledge about cancer patients' experiences of uncertainty while waiting for genome sequencing results, and whether prolonged uncertainty contributes to psychological factors in this context. To investigate uncertainty in patients with a cancer of likely hereditary origin while waiting for genome sequencing results, we collected questionnaire and interview data at baseline, and at three and 12 months follow up (prior to receiving results). Participants (N = 353) had negative attitudes towards uncertainty (M = 4.03, SD 0.68) at baseline, and low levels of uncertainty at three (M = 8.23, SD 7.37) and 12 months (M = 7.95, SD 7.64). Uncertainty about genome sequencing did not change significantly over time [t(210) = 0.660, p = 0.510]. Greater perceived susceptibility for cancer [r(348) = 0.14, p < 0.01], fear of cancer recurrence [r(348) = 0.19, p < 0.01], perceived importance of genome sequencing [r(350) = 0.24, p < 0.01], intention to change behavior if a gene variant indicating risk is found [r(349) = 0.29, p < 0.01], perceived ability to cope with results [r(349) = 0.36, p < 0.01], and satisfaction with decision to have genome sequencing [r(350) = 0.52, p < 0.01] were significantly correlated with negative attitudes towards uncertainty at baseline. Multiple primary cancer diagnoses [B = -2.364 [-4.238, -0.491], p = 0.014], lower perceived ability to cope with results [B = -0.1.881 [-3.403, -0.359], p = 0.016] at baseline, greater anxiety about genome sequencing (avoidance) [B = 0.347 [0.148, 0.546], p = 0.0012] at 3 months, and greater perceived uncertainty about genome sequencing [B = 0.494 [0.267, 0.721] p = 0.000] at 3 months significantly predicted greater perceived uncertainty about genome sequencing at 12 months. Greater perceived uncertainty about genome sequencing at 3 months significantly predicted greater anxiety (avoidance) about genome sequencing at 12 months [B = 0.291 [0.072, 0.509], p = 0.009]. Semi-structured interviews revealed that while participants were motivated to pursue genome sequencing as a strategy to reduce their illness and risk uncertainty, genome sequencing generated additional practical, scientific and personal uncertainties. Some uncertainties were consistently discussed over the 12 months, while others emerged over time. Similarly, some uncertainty coping strategies were consistent over time, while others emerged while patients waited for their genome sequencing results. This study demonstrates the complexity of uncertainty generated by genome sequencing for cancer patients and provides further support for the inter-relationship between uncertainty and anxiety. Helping patients manage their uncertainty may ameliorate psychological morbidity.

Psychosocial outcomes following germline multigene panel testing in an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the psychological outcomes of germline multigene panel testing, particularly among diverse patients and those with moderate-risk pathogenic variants (PVs).

METHODS

Study participants (N = 1264) were counseled and tested with a 25- or 28-gene panel and completed a 3-month postresult survey including the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA).

RESULTS

The mean age was 52 years, 80% were female, and 70% had cancer; 45% were non-Hispanic White, 37% were Hispanic, 10% were Asian, 3% were Black, and 5% had another race/ethnicity. Approximately 28% had a high school education or less, and 23% were non-English-speaking. The genetic test results were as follows: 7% had a high-risk PV, 6% had a moderate-risk PV, 35% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 52% were negative. Most participants (92%) had a total MICRA score ≤ 38, which corresponded to a mean response of "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacting negatively to results. A multivariate analysis found that mean total MICRA scores were significantly higher (more uncertainty/distress) among high- and moderate-risk PV carriers (29.7 and 24.8, respectively) than those with a VUS or negative results (17.4 and 16.1, respectively). Having cancer or less education was associated with a significantly higher total MICRA score; race/ethnicity was not associated with the total MICRA score. High- and moderate-risk PV carriers did not differ significantly from one another in the total MICRA score, uncertainty, distress, or positive experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

In a diverse population undergoing genetic counseling and multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk, the psychological response corresponded to test results and showed low distress and uncertainty. Further studies are needed to assess patient understanding and subsequent cancer screening among patients from diverse backgrounds.

LAY SUMMARY

Multigene panel tests for hereditary cancer have become widespread despite concerns about adverse psychological reactions among carriers of moderate-risk pathogenic variants (mutations) and among carriers of variants of uncertain significance. This large study of an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients undergoing panel testing found that 92% "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacted negatively to results. Somewhat higher uncertainty and distress were identified among carriers of high- and moderate-risk pathogenic variants, and lower levels were identified among those with a variant of uncertain significance or a negative result. Although the psychological response corresponded to risk, reactions to testing were favorable, regardless of results.

"I wish that there was more info": characterizing the uncertainty experienced by carriers of pathogenic ATM and/or CHEK2 variants

Little is known about what uncertainties patients experience after being identified to carry a pathogenic variant in a moderate-risk cancer gene as a result of undergoing multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility. Data regarding cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of risk management strategies for these variants continues to evolve, which has the potential to evoke uncertainty. Acknowledging uncertainty during pre- and post-test discussions is imperative to helping individuals to adapt to their results. A better understanding of this population's experience of uncertainty is needed to facilitate such discussions and is the aim of the current study. Semi-structured interviews (30-60 min in length), informed by Han and colleagues' taxonomy of uncertainty in clinical genomic sequencing, were conducted to assess motivations to pursue genetic testing, areas of perceived uncertainty, and strategies for managing uncertainty among 20 carriers of pathogenic variants in two moderate-risk genes, ATM and CHEK2. We found that participants pursue genetic testing with the expectation that results will clarify cancer risks and approaches to management. Participants experience uncertainties aligning with Han's taxonomy relating to the ambiguity of specific cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of certain risk management strategies. These uncertainties influenced decisions around the uptake of risk management strategies, which were additionally impacted by clinicians' uncertainty towards such strategies. Participants employ a variety of uncertainty management approaches to cope with their anxieties. Clinicians may wish to use these findings to facilitate patient adaptation to the implications of multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility during both pre- and post-test counseling sessions.

Pursuing germline genome sequencing to reduce illness uncertainty may involve additional uncertainties for cancer patients: A mixed-methods study

Cancer-related illness uncertainty has been associated with poorer psychological outcomes for patients. While some cancer patients believe obtaining genomic information will reduce their illness uncertainty, the complexity of genomics has the potential to compound illness uncertainty. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to investigate uncertainty in patients with a cancer of likely heritable origin immediately following their decision to have germline genome sequencing. Participant (N = 348) negative attitudes toward uncertainty were associated with higher satisfaction with decision to have germline genome sequencing and greater fear of cancer recurrence. Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with a subset of participant (N = 20) revealed the following four themes: (a) germline genome sequencing to reduce illness uncertainty; (b) germline genome sequencing to reduce uncertainty related to relatives' risk; (c) uncertainty generated by germline genome sequencing; and (d) resilience and coping with uncertainty. This study demonstrated the complexity of uncertainty in germline genome sequencing in cancer patients. These results provide genomic healthcare professionals with important information about cancer patient's motivation to pursue germline genome sequencing, the specific uncertainties generated by germline genome sequencing, and how cancer patients cope with uncertainty.

Implications of Multigene Panel Testing on Psychosocial Outcomes: A Comparison of Patients With Pancreatic and Breast or Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE

National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for germline genetic testing have included pancreatic cancer in the context of additional family cancer history for many years but this was not recommended for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) independent of a family history until 2019. This hypothesis-generating study reports the results from multigene panel testing for PDAC patients at an academic medical center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective longitudinal feasibility study examined responses to genetic counseling and multigene panel testing among PDAC and breast or ovarian cancer (BrOv) patients between October 2016 and November 2017. Pre- and post-test surveys assessed perceptions of genetic risk and testing, recall, comprehension, and emotional reactions to results using open-ended and closed-ended items.

RESULTS

Forty-six BrOv and 33 PDAC patients were enrolled, and 44 BrOv and 31 PDAC participants underwent genetic testing. Seven pathogenic variants were identified in six BrOv participants (13.6%), and three pathogenic variants were identified in three PDAC participants (9.7%). The majority of both cohorts expressed similar attitudes about the importance of genetic testing for their personal and family medical management and expressed accurate understanding of implications of their results. Although sample size was small, there were no significant differences between the BrOv and PDAC cohorts for positive or negative emotions.

CONCLUSION

This study points to high rates of positive emotions and low rates of negative emotions following genetic test results, suggesting that the emotional reactions to genetic test results are similar for patients with BrOv and PDAC, despite poor prognosis with PDAC diagnoses. Because of the unique needs of the PDAC population following diagnosis, a multidisciplinary approach to germline genetic testing following diagnosis may result in best patient and family member outcomes.

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.

Informing models of cancer genetics care in the era of multigene panel testing with patient-led recommendations

The study describes patient-reported experiences and recommendations to improve the genetic counseling and multigene panel testing (MGPT) process. A descriptive mixed-method study with concurrently collected and integrated qualitative and quantitative data was conducted. Eligible participants were English-speaking adults with a breast or gynecologic cancer diagnosis who had received genetic counseling and testing with a MGPT from one Comprehensive Cancer Center. Satisfaction with the genetic counseling, genetic knowledge using a recently validated scale (KnowGene), the multidimensional impact of cancer risk assessment (MICRA), family communication, and the association with demographic factors were evaluated. To supplement the large quantitative data set, qualitative focus group responses and open-ended text items were collected. Univariate and multivariable associations between each outcome of interest and personal characteristics were assessed. Qualitative data were content-analyzed. 603 participants completed the survey (48% response rate) and 10 individuals participated in the focus groups. Participants were mostly Caucasian, educated with a college degree or more, and female with median age 58 (24-91), and 78% of participants had a breast cancer diagnosis. Of all individuals undergoing genetic testing using a MGPT, 13% had a pathogenic variant identified, and 30% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). Overall, participants reported satisfaction with the genetic counseling and testing process (mean 36.9 [SD 4.7]). On average, participants had 7 incorrect answers out of 19 on the genetic knowledge scale (mean 12.3 [SD 3.4]). MICRA scores showed overall low levels of distress and uncertainty, as well as positive experiences, with wide variability (median 17 [0-84]). Age, marital status, education level, type of cancer diagnosis, and genetic testing results were significantly associated with outcomes. Most participants communicated genetic testing results to mainly female first-degree relatives. A wide range of individual preferences affecting overall satisfaction, or suggestions for improvement were shared. As new models of streamlined cancer genetic services are being clinically implemented, approaches should continue to assess and tailor the process based on patients' informational and emotional needs.

Hereditary Gastric and Breast Cancer Syndromes Related to CDH1 Germline Mutation: A Multidisciplinary Clinical Review

E-cadherin (CDH1 gene) germline mutations are associated with the development of diffuse gastric cancer in the context of the so-called hereditary diffuse gastric syndrome, and with an inherited predisposition of lobular breast carcinoma. In 2019, the international gastric cancer linkage consortium revised the clinical criteria and established guidelines for the genetic screening of CDH1 germline syndromes. Nevertheless, the introduction of multigene panel testing in clinical practice has led to an increased identification of E-cadherin mutations in individuals without a positive family history of gastric or breast cancers. This observation motivated us to review and present a novel multidisciplinary clinical approach (nutritional, surgical, and image screening) for single subjects who present germline CDH1 mutations but do not fulfil the classic clinical criteria, namely those identified as-(1) incidental finding and (2) individuals with lobular breast cancer without family history of gastric cancer (GC).

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.

How to facilitate psychosocial adjustment in women tested for hereditary breast or ovarian cancer susceptibility? Insights from network analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasingly complex genetics counseling requires guidance to facilitate counselees' psychosocial adjustment. We explored networks of inter-relationships among coping strategies and specific psychosocial difficulties in women tested for hereditary breast or ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Of 752 counselees consecutively approached, 646 (86%) completed questionnaires addressing coping strategies (Brief-COPE) and psychosocial difficulties (PAHC) after the initial genetic consultation (T1), and 460 (61%) of them again after the test result (T2). We applied network analysis comparing partial correlations among these questionnaire scales, according to the type of genetic test - single gene-targeted or multigene panel, test result and, before and after testing.

RESULTS

Overall, 98 (21.3%), 259 (56.3%), 59 (12.8%) and 44 (9.6%) women received a pathogenic variant, uninformative negative (panel testing), variant of uncertain significance (VUS) or true negative (targeted testing) result, respectively. In most networks, connections were strongest between avoidance and general negative emotions. Cognitive restructuring was inter-related to lower psychosocial difficulties. Avoidance and familial/social relationship difficulties were strongly related in women receiving a pathogenic variant. Stronger inter-relationships were also noticed between avoidance and worries about personal cancer and concerns about hereditary predisposition in women receiving a VUS result. Differences in the prominence of inter-relationships were observed by type of testing and assessment time.

CONCLUSIONS

Network analysis may be fruitful to highlight prominent inter-relationships among coping strategies and psychosocial difficulties, in women tested for HBOC susceptibility, offering guidance for counseling.

The "Psychosocial Aspects in Hereditary Cancer" questionnaire in women attending breast cancer genetic clinics: Psychometric validation across French-, German- and Spanish-language versions

BACKGROUND

We performed a comprehensive assessment of the psychometrics of the "Psychosocial Aspects in Hereditary Cancer" (PAHC) questionnaire in French, German and Spanish.

METHODS

Women consecutively approached in Cancer Genetic Clinics completed the PAHC, distress and satisfaction questionnaires at pre-testing (T1) and after test result disclosure (T2). In addition to standard psychometric attributes, we assessed the PAHC ability to respond to change (i.e. improvement or deterioration from T1 to T2) in perceived difficulties and computed minimal important differences (MID) in PAHC scores as compared with self-reported needs for additional counselling.

RESULTS

Of 738 eligible counselees, 214 (90%) in France (Paris), 301 (92%) in Germany (Cologne) and 133 (77%) in Spain (Barcelona) completed the PAHC. A six-factor revised PAHC model yielded acceptable CFA goodness-of-fit indexes and good all scales internal consistencies. PAHC scales demonstrated expected conceptual differences with distress and satisfaction with counselling. Different levels of psychosocial difficulties were evidenced between counselees' subgroups and over time (p-values < .05). MID estimates ranged from 8 to 15 for improvement and 9 to 21 for deterioration.

CONCLUSION

The PAHC French, German and Spanish versions are reliable and valid for evaluating the psychosocial difficulties of women at high BC risk attending genetic clinics.

Psychosocial problems in women attending French, German and Spanish genetics clinics before and after targeted or multigene testing results: an observational prospective study

OBJECTIVES AND SETTING

Advances in multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility has increased the complexity of counselling, requiring particular attention to counselees' psychosocial needs. Changes in psychosocial problems before and after genetic testing were prospectively compared between genetic test results in women tested for breast or ovarian cancer genetic susceptibility in French, German and Spanish clinics.

PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES

Among 752 counselees consecutively approached, 646 (86%) were assessed after the initial genetic consultation (T1), including 510 (68%) affected with breast cancer, of which 460 (61%) were assessed again after receiving the test result (T2), using questionnaires addressing genetic-specific psychosocial problems (Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer (PAHC)-six scales). Sociodemographic and clinical data were also collected.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine (17.2%), 19 (4.1%), 259 (56.3%), 44 (9.6%) and 59 (12.8%) women received a BRCA1/2, another high/moderate-risk pathogenic variant (PV), negative uninformative, true negative (TN) or variant of uncertain significance result (VUS), respectively. On multiple regression analyses, compared with women receiving another result, those with a VUS decreased more in psychosocial problems related to hereditary predisposition (eg, coping with the test result) (ß=-0.11, p<0.05) and familial/social issues (eg, risk communication) (ß=-0.13, p<0.05), almost independently from their problems before testing. Women with a PV presented no change in hereditary predisposition problems and, so as women with a TN result, a non-significant increase in familial/social issues. Other PAHC scales (ie, emotions, familial cancer, personal cancer and children-related issues) were not affected by genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In women tested for breast or ovarian cancer genetic risk in European genetics clinics, psychosocial problems were mostly unaffected by genetic testing. Apart from women receiving a VUS result, those with another test result presented unchanged needs in counselling in particular about hereditary predisposition and familial/social issues.

Psychosocial Effects of Multigene Panel Testing in the Context of Cancer Genomics

In recent years, with both the development of next-generation sequencing approaches and the Supreme Court decision invalidating gene patents, declining costs have contributed to the emergence of a new model of hereditary cancer genetic testing. Multigene panel testing (or multiplex testing) involves using next-generation sequencing technology to determine the sequence of multiple cancer-susceptibility genes. In addition to high-penetrance cancer-susceptibility genes, multigene panels frequently include genes that are less robustly associated with cancer predisposition. Scientific understanding about associations between many specific moderate-penetrance gene variants and cancer risks is incomplete. The emergence of multigene panel tests has created unique challenges that may have meaningful psychosocial implications. Contrasted with the serial testing process, wherein patients consider the personal and clinical implications of each evaluated gene, with multigene panel testing, patients provide broad consent to whichever genes are included in a particular panel and then, after the test, receive in-depth genetic counseling to clarify the distinct implications of their specific results. Consequently, patients undergoing multigene panel testing may have a less nuanced understanding of the test and its implications, and they may have fewer opportunities to self-select against the receipt of particular types of genetic-risk information. Evidence is conflicting regarding the emotional effects of this testing.

Opportunistic testing of BRCA1, BRCA2 and mismatch repair genes improves the yield of phenotype driven hereditary cancer gene panels

Multigene panels provide a powerful tool for analyzing several genes simultaneously. We evaluated the frequency of pathogenic variants (PV) in customized predefined panels according to clinical suspicion by phenotype and compared it to the yield obtained in the analysis of our clinical research gene panel. We also investigated mutational yield of opportunistic testing of BRCA1/2 and mismatch repair (MMR) genes in all patients. A total of 1,205 unrelated probands with clinical suspicion of hereditary cancer were screened for germline mutations using panel testing. Overall, 1,048 females and 157 males were analyzed, mean age at cancer diagnosis was 48; 883 had hereditary breast/ovarian cancer-suspicion, 205 hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)-suspicion, 73 adenomatous-polyposis-suspicion and 44 with other/multiple clinical criteria. At least one PV was found in 150 probands (12%) analyzed by our customized phenotype-driven panel. Tumoral MMR deficiency predicted for the presence of germline MMR gene mutations in patients with HNPCC-suspicion (46/136 vs. 0/56 in patients with and without MMR deficiency, respectively). Opportunistic testing additionally identified five MSH6, one BRCA1 and one BRCA2 carriers (0.6%). The analysis of the extended 24-gene panel provided 25 additional PVs (2%), including in 4 out of 51 individuals harboring MMR-proficient colorectal tumors (2 CHEK2 and 2 ATM). Phenotype-based panels provide a notable rate of PVs with clinical actionability. Opportunistic testing of MMR and BRCA genes leads to a significant straightforward identification of MSH6, BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, and endorses the model of opportunistic testing of genes with clinical utility within a standard genetic counseling framework.

Multigene panel testing beyond BRCA1/2 in breast/ovarian cancer Spanish families and clinical actionability of findings

PURPOSE

Few and small studies have been reported about multigene testing usage by massively parallel sequencing in European cancer families. There is an open debate about what genes should be tested, and the actionability of some included genes is under research.

METHODS

We investigated a panel of 34 known high/moderate-risk cancer genes, including 16 related to breast or ovarian cancer (BC/OC) genes, and 63 candidate genes to BC/OC in 192 clinically suspicious of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) Spanish families without pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2).

RESULTS

We identified 16 patients who carried a high- or moderate-risk pathogenic variant in eight genes: 4 PALB2, 3 ATM, 2 RAD51D, 2 TP53, 2 APC, 1 BRIP1, 1 PTEN and 1 PMS2. These findings led to increased surveillance or prevention options in 12 patients and predictive testing in their family members. We detected 383 unique variants of uncertain significance in known cancer genes, of which 35 were prioritized in silico. Eighteen loss-of-function variants were detected in candidate BC/OC genes in 17 patients (1 BARD1, 1 ERCC3, 1 ERCC5, 2 FANCE, 1 FANCI, 2 FANCL, 1 FANCM, 1 MCPH1, 1 PPM1D, 2 RBBP8, 3 RECQL4 and 1 with SLX4 and XRCC2), three of which also carry pathogenic variants in known cancer genes.

CONCLUSIONS

Eight percent of the BRCA1/2 negative patients carry pathogenic variants in other actionable genes. The multigene panel usage improves the diagnostic yield in HBOC testing and it is an effective tool to identify potentially new candidate genes.