BRCAsearch: written pre-test information and BRCA1/2 germline mutation testing in unselected patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer

Retrospective genetic testing (Traceback) in women with early-onset breast cancer after revised national guidelines: a clinical implementation study

PURPOSE

This study focused on identifying a hereditary predisposition in women previously diagnosed with early-onset breast cancer through a retrospective outreach activity (Traceback). The objectives were to evaluate the possible clinical implementation of a simplified Traceback strategy and to identify carriers of pathogenic variants among previously untested women.

METHODS

Three hundred and fifteen Traceback-eligible women diagnosed with breast cancer at 36-40 years in Southern Sweden between 2000 and 2019 were identified and offered an analysis of the genes ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D through a standardized letter. Women who chose to participate were asked about their experiences through a questionnaire. The workload for the study personnel was measured and recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-six women underwent genetic testing and pathogenic variants were identified in 9.7%: ATM (n = 6), BARD1 (n = 1), BRCA1 (n = 3), CHEK2 (n = 5), and PALB2 (n = 2). Women with normal test results were informed through a standardized letter. Carriers of pathogenic variants were contacted by telephone and offered in-person genetic counseling. One hundred and thirty-four women returned the subsequent questionnaire. Most study participants were satisfied with both written pre- and post-test information and many expressed their gratitude. The extra workload as compared to routine clinical genetic counseling was modest (8 min per patient).

CONCLUSION

The insights from the participants' perspectives and sentiments throughout the process support the notion that the Traceback procedure is a safe and an appreciated complement to routine genetic counseling. The genetic yield of almost 10% also suggests that the associated extra workload for genetic counselors could be viewed as acceptable in clinical implementation scenarios.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Olaparib Versus Watch and Wait in the Treatment of Germline BRCA1/2-Mutated, High-Risk, HER2-Negative Early Breast Cancer in Sweden

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib versus watch and wait (WaW) in patients with germline breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated, high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer (eBC), previously treated with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, from a Swedish healthcare perspective.

METHODS

A five-state (invasive disease-free survival [IDFS], non-metastatic breast cancer [non-mBC], early-onset mBC, late-onset mBC, death) semi-Markov state transition model with a lifetime horizon was developed. Transition probabilities were informed by data from the Phase III OlympiA trial, supplemented with data from additional studies in BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative mBC. Health state utilities were derived via mapping of OlympiA data and supplemented by literature estimates. Treatment, adverse events and other medical costs were extracted from publicly available Swedish sources. Incremental cost per life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, adjuvant olaparib was associated with an additional 1.50 LYs and 1.22 QALYs, and incremental cost of 471,156 Swedish krona (SEK) versus WaW (discounted). The resulting ICER was 385,183SEK per QALY gained for olaparib versus WaW. ICERs remained below 1,000,000SEK across a range of scenarios, and were consistent across subgroups (hormone receptor [HR]-positive/HER2-negative and triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]). In PSA, the probability of olaparib being cost effective at 1,000,000SEK per QALY was 99.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

At list price, adjuvant olaparib is a cost-effective alternative to WaW in patients with gBRCA1/2-mutated, high-risk, HER2-negative eBC in Sweden.

Patient decision support resources inform decisions about cancer susceptibility genetic testing and risk management: a systematic review of patient impact and experience

Background

Patients with genetic cancer susceptibility are presented with complex management options involving difficult decisions, for example about genetic testing, treatment, screening and risk-reducing surgery/medications. This review sought to explore the experience of patients using decision support resources in this context, and the impact on decision-making outcomes.

Methods

Systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies involving adults with or without cancer who used a decision support resource pre- or post-genetic test for any cancer susceptibility. To gather a broad view of existing resources and gaps for development, digital or paper-based patient resources were included and not limited to decision aids. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise patient impact and experience.

Results

Thirty-six publications describing 27 resources were included. Heterogeneity of resources and outcome measurements highlighted the multiple modes of resource delivery and personal tailoring acceptable to and valued by patients. Impact on cognitive, emotional, and behavioural outcomes was mixed, but mainly positive. Findings suggested clear potential for quality patient-facing resources to be acceptable and useful.

Conclusions

Decision support resources about genetic cancer susceptibility are likely useful to support decision-making, but should be co-designed with patients according to evidence-based frameworks. More research is needed to study impact and outcomes, particularly in terms of longer term follow-up to identify whether patients follow through on decisions and whether any increased distress is transient. Innovative, streamlined resources are needed to scale up delivery of genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer in mainstream oncology clinics. Tailored patient-facing decision aids should also be made available to patients identified as carriers of a pathogenic gene variant that increases future cancer risks, to complement traditional genetic counselling.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020220460, identifier: CRD42020220460.

Molecular characteristics of breast tumors in patients screened for germline predisposition from a population-based observational study

BACKGROUND

Pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in certain genes are linked to higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer and can influence preventive surgery decisions and therapy choices. Public health programs offer genetic screening based on criteria designed to assess personal risk and identify individuals more likely to carry PGVs, dividing patients into screened and non-screened groups. How tumor biology and clinicopathological characteristics differ between these groups is understudied and could guide refinement of screening criteria.

METHODS

Six thousand six hundred sixty breast cancer patients diagnosed in South Sweden during 2010-2018 were included with available clinicopathological and RNA sequencing data, 900 (13.5%) of which had genes screened for PGVs through routine clinical screening programs. We compared characteristics of screened patients and tumors to non-screened patients, as well as between screened patients with (n = 124) and without (n = 776) PGVs.

RESULTS

Broadly, breast tumors in screened patients showed features of a more aggressive disease. However, few differences related to tumor biology or patient outcome remained significant after stratification by clinical subgroups or PAM50 subtypes. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the subgroup most enriched for PGVs, showed the most differences between screening subpopulations (e.g., higher tumor proliferation in screened cases). Significant differences in PGV prevalence were found between clinical subgroups/molecular subtypes, e.g., TNBC cases were enriched for BRCA1 PGVs. In general, clinicopathological differences between screened and non-screened patients mimicked those between patients with and without PGVs, e.g., younger age at diagnosis for positive cases. However, differences in tumor biology/microenvironment such as immune cell composition were additionally seen within PGV carriers/non-carriers in ER + /HER2 - cases, but not between screening subpopulations in this subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Characterization of molecular tumor features in patients clinically screened and not screened for PGVs represents a relevant read-out of guideline criteria. The general lack of molecular differences between screened/non-screened patients after stratification by relevant breast cancer subsets questions the ability to improve the identification of screening candidates based on currently used patient and tumor characteristics, pointing us towards universal screening. Nevertheless, while that is not attained, molecular differences identified between PGV carriers/non-carriers suggest the possibility of further refining patient selection within certain patient subsets using RNA-seq through, e.g., gene signatures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Sweden Cancerome Analysis Network - Breast (SCAN-B) was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT02306096.

Ask Rosa - The making of a digital genetic conversation tool, a chatbot, about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

We aimed at developing a pilot version of an app (Rosa) that can perform digital conversations with breast or ovarian cancer patients about genetic BRCA testing, using chatbot technology, to identify best practices for future patient-focused chatbots.

METHODS

We chose a commercial chatbot platform and participatory methodology with a team of patient representatives, IT engineers, genetic counselors and clinical geneticists, within a nationwide collaboration. An iterative approach ensured extensive user and formal usability testing during the development process.

RESULTS

The development phase lasted for two years until the pilot version was completed in December 2019. The iteration steps disclosed major challenges in the artificial intelligence (AI)-based matching of user provided questions with predefined information in the database, leading initially to high level of fallback answers. We therefore developed strategies to reduce potential language ambiguities (e.g. BRCA1 vs BRCA2) and overcome dialogue confusion. The first prototype contained a database with 500 predefined questions and 67 corresponding predefined answers, while the final version included 2257 predefined questions and 144 predefined answers. Despite the limited AI functionality of the chatbot, the testing revealed that the users liked the layout and found the chatbot trustworthy and reader friendly.

CONCLUSIONS

Building a health chatbot is challenging, expensive and time consuming with today's technology. The users had a positive attitude to the chatbot, and would use it in a real life setting, if given to them by health care personnel.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

We here present a framework for future health chatbot initiatives. The participatory methodology in combination with an iterative approach ensured that the patient perspective was incorporated at every level of the development process. We strongly recommend this approach in patient-centered health innovations.

Genetic testing in women with early-onset breast cancer: a Traceback pilot study

Purpose

In Sweden, a Traceback approach, i.e., a retrospective genetic outreach activity, among cancer patients is not normally used in clinical practice. In this pilot study, we wanted to evaluate a Traceback strategy for possible future clinical implementation and investigate why not all women with early-onset breast cancer underwent genetic testing when they were first diagnosed.

Methods

Out of all women (n = 409) diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤ 35 years in Southern Sweden between 2000 and 2017, 63 had not previously been tested. These women were offered an analysis of the genes BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM through a standardized letter. Subsequently, women with normal test results were informed through a letter and carriers of pathogenic variants were contacted through a telephone call and offered in-person genetic counseling. All tested women were asked to complete a follow-up questionnaire regarding previously not having attended genetic counseling and testing and their experiences of the current retrospective approach.

Results

Out of the invited women, 29 (46%) underwent genetic testing and 27 (43%) answered the questionnaire. Pathogenic variants were identified in BRCA1 (n = 2), CHEK2 (n = 1), and ATM (n = 1). The main reason for previously not having undergone genetic testing was not having received any information from their physicians. Most study participants were satisfied with both written pre- and post-test information.

Conclusion

The process with retrospective identification, written pre-test information, and genetic testing, followed by in-person counseling for carriers of pathogenic variants only, was well accepted. This has implications for future Traceback implementation programs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-021-06351-z.

Breast cancer survival in Nordic BRCA2 mutation carriers-unconventional association with oestrogen receptor status

Background

The natural history of breast cancer among BRCA2 carriers has not been clearly established. In a previous study from Iceland, positive ER status was a negative prognostic factor. We sought to identify factors that predicted survival after invasive breast cancer in an expanded cohort of BRCA2 carriers.

Methods

We studied 608 women with invasive breast cancer and a pathogenic BRCA2 mutation (variant) from four Nordic countries. Information on prognostic factors and treatment was retrieved from health records and by analysis of archived tissue specimens. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated for breast cancer-specific survival using Cox regression.

Results

About 77% of cancers were ER-positive, with the highest proportion (83%) in patients under 40 years. ER-positive breast cancers were more likely to be node-positive (59%) than ER-negative cancers (34%) (P < 0.001). The survival analysis included 584 patients. Positive ER status was protective in the first 5 years from diagnosis (multivariate HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.26–0.93, P = 0.03); thereafter, the effect was adverse (HR = 1.91; 95% CI 1.07–3.39, P = 0.03). The adverse effect of positive ER status was limited to women who did not undergo endocrine treatment (HR = 2.36; 95% CI 1.26–4.44, P = 0.01) and patients with intact ovaries (HR = 1.99; 95% CI 1.11–3.59, P = 0.02).

Conclusions

The adverse effect of a positive ER status in BRCA2 carriers with breast cancer may be contingent on exposure to ovarian hormones.

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.

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

IMPORTANCE

Increasing BRCA1 and BRCA2 (collectively termed herein as BRCA) gene testing is required to improve cancer management and prevent BRCA-related cancers.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate mainstream genetic testing using cancer-based criteria in patients with cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A quality improvement study and cost-effectiveness analysis of different BRCA testing selection criteria and access procedures to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and mutation detection performance was conducted at the Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust as part of the Mainstreaming Cancer Genetics (MCG) Programme. Participants included 1184 patients with cancer who were undergoing genetic testing between September 1, 2013, and February 28, 2017.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mutation rates, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 1184 patients (1158 women [97.8%]) meeting simple cancer-based criteria, 117 had a BRCA mutation (9.9%). The mutation rate was similar in retrospective United Kingdom (10.2% [235 of 2294]) and prospective Malaysian (9.7% [103 of 1061]) breast cancer studies. If traditional family history criteria had been used, more than 50% of the mutation-positive individuals would have been missed. Of the 117 mutation-positive individuals, 115 people (98.3%) attended their genetics appointment and cascade to relatives is underway in all appropriate families (85 of 85). Combining with the equivalent ovarian cancer study provides 5 simple cancer-based criteria for BRCA testing with a 10% mutation rate: (1) ovarian cancer; (2) breast cancer diagnosed when patients are 45 years or younger; (3) 2 primary breast cancers, both diagnosed when patients are 60 years or younger; (4) triple-negative breast cancer; and (5) male breast cancer. A sixth criterion-breast cancer plus a parent, sibling, or child with any of the other criteria-can be added to address family history. Criteria 1 through 5 are considered the MCG criteria, and criteria 1 through 6 are considered the MCGplus criteria. Testing using MCG or MCGplus criteria is cost-effective with cost-effectiveness ratios of $1330 per discounted QALYs and $1225 per discounted QALYs, respectively, and appears to lead to cancer and mortality reductions (MCG: 804 cancers, 161 deaths; MCGplus: 1020 cancers, 204 deaths per year over 50 years). Use of MCG or MCGplus criteria might allow detection of all BRCA mutations in patients with breast cancer in the United Kingdom through testing one-third of patients. Feedback questionnaires from 259 patients and 23 cancer team members (12 oncologists, 8 surgeons, and 3 nurse specialists) showed acceptability of the process with 100% of patients pleased they had genetic testing and 100% of cancer team members confident to approve patients for genetic testing. Use of MCGplus criteria also appeared to be time and resource efficient, requiring 95% fewer genetic consultations than the traditional process.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study suggests that mainstream testing using simple, cancer-based criteria might be able to efficiently deliver consistent, cost-effective, patient-centered BRCA testing.

Genetic counselling and testing of susceptibility genes for therapeutic decision-making in breast cancer-an European consensus statement and expert recommendations

An international panel of experts representing 17 European countries and Israel convened to discuss current needs and future developments in BRCA testing and counselling and to issue consensus recommendations. The experts agreed that, with the increasing availability of high-throughput testing platforms and the registration of poly-ADP-ribose-polymerase inhibitors, the need for genetic counselling and testing will rapidly increase in the near future. Consequently, the already existing shortage of genetic counsellors is expected to worsen and to compromise the quality of care particularly in individuals and families with suspected or proven hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. Increasing educational efforts within the breast cancer caregiver community may alleviate this limitation by enabling all involved specialities to perform genetic counselling. In the therapeutic setting, for patients with a clinical suspicion of genetic susceptibility and if the results may have an immediate impact on the therapeutic strategy, the majority voted that BRCA1/2 testing should be performed after histological diagnosis of breast cancer, regardless of oestrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. Experts also agreed that, in the predictive and therapeutic setting, genetic testing should be limited to individuals with a personal or family history suggestive of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant and should also include high-risk actionable genes beyond BRCA1/2. Of high-risk actionable genes, all pathological variants (i.e. class IV and V) should be reported; class III variants of unknown significance, should be reported provided that the current lack of clinical utility of the variant is expressly stated. Genetic counselling should always address the possibility that already tested individuals might be re-contacted in case new information on a particular variant results in a re-classification.

High patient satisfaction with a simplified BRCA1/2 testing procedure: long-term results of a prospective study

Purpose

In the BRCAsearch study, unselected breast cancer patients were prospectively offered germline BRCA1/2 mutation testing through a simplified testing procedure. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate satisfaction with the BRCAsearch testing procedure and, furthermore, to report on uptake rates of prophylactic surgeries among mutation carriers.

Methods

Pre-test information was provided by a standardized invitation letter instead of in-person genetic counseling. The patients were offered contact with a genetic counselor for telephone genetic counseling if they felt a need for that. Mutation carriers were telephoned and given a time for a face-to-face post-test genetic counseling appointment. Non-carriers were informed about the test result through a letter. One year after the test results were delivered, a study-specific questionnaire was mailed to the study participants who had consented to testing. The response rate was 83.1% (448 of 539).

Results

A great majority (96.0%) of the responders were content with the method used for providing information within the study, and 98.7% were content with having pursued genetic testing. 11.1% answered that they would have liked to receive more oral information. In an adjusted logistic regression model, patients with somatic comorbidity (OR 2.56; P = 0.02) and patients born outside of Sweden (OR 3.54; P = 0.01) were more likely, and patients with occupations requiring at least 3 years of university or college education (OR 0.37; P = 0.06) were less likely to wanting to receive more oral information. All 11 mutation carriers attended post-test genetic counseling. At a median follow-up of 2 years, the uptake of prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy was 100%, and the uptake of prophylactic mastectomy was 55%.

Conclusions

Satisfaction with a simplified BRCA1/2 testing procedure was very high. Written pre-test information has now replaced in-person pre-test counseling for breast cancer patients in our health care region.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-018-5000-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Written pretest information and germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant testing in unselected breast cancer patients: predictors of testing uptake

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate predictors of testing uptake among unselected breast cancer patients who were offered germline BRCA1/2 testing in a prospective study.

METHODS

Pretest information was provided by a standardized invitation letter instead of in-person counseling. Data was abstracted from medical records. Using multivariate logistic regressions, predictors of testing uptake were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall uptake of testing was 67% (539 of 805 patients). Low uptake rates were found for patients aged ≥80 years (33%), and patients born outside of Europe (37%). In adjusted analysis, age ≥80 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.10; P = 0.002), psychiatric disorders (OR 0.46; P = 0.006), occupation requiring at least 3 years of university or college education (OR 2.03; P = 0.003), and breast cancer or ovarian cancer in first-degree or second-degree relatives (OR 1.66; P = 0.02) were independently associated with uptake of BRCA1/2 testing. Somatic comorbidity in patients aged <70 years was associated with lower testing uptake.

CONCLUSION

Testing uptake varies across different subgroups according to patient-related factors that are readily available in the medical records. Knowledge about these factors enables health care professionals to identify patients who are less likely to pursue genetic testing.