Impact of Panel Gene Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer on Patients

Knowledge and Awareness of Cancer Genome Profiling Tests among Japanese Patients with Cancer

(1) Background: The number of patients with cancer undergoing cancer genome profiling is increasing; however, it remains unclear how accurately they understand the details of the tests and treatments. This study aimed to clarify the awareness of cancer genome profiling tests among patients with cancer who visited cancer genome medical clinics. (2) Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted on awareness, anxiety, sources of information, and psychological states concerning cancer genome profiling tests. (3) Results: In total, 265 patients with cancer (117 men, 142 women, 6 no response, average age of 58.29 ± 11.9 years) were included in the study, of which 218 (82.3%) were aware of the term "cancer genomic medicine" and 90 (34.0%) were aware of its details. Thus, only a few respondents understood that cancer genome profiling tests facilitate the discovery of secondary findings and of genes associated with hereditary tumors. Regarding their psychological state when visiting the cancer genome clinic, the respondents were anxious about standard treatment and prognosis limits. (4) Conclusions: From the viewpoint of advance care planning, we suggest that medical professionals build a support system that links palliative care and cancer treatment and coordinates genetic counseling at an early stage.

Prevalence and Reclassification of Genetic Variants in South African Populations with Breast Cancer

Concurrent testing of numerous genes for hereditary breast cancer (BC) is available but can result in management difficulties. We evaluated use of an expanded BC gene panel in women of diverse South African ancestries and assessed use of African genomic data to reclassify variants of uncertain significance (VUS). A total of 331 women of White, Black African, or Mixed Ancestry with BC had a 9-gene panel test, with an additional 75 genes tested in those without a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant. The proportion of VUS reclassified using ClinGen gene-specific allele frequency (AF) thresholds or an AF > 0.001 in nonguidelines genes in African genomic data was determined. The 9-gene panel identified 58 P/LP variants, but only two of the P/LP variants detected using the 75-gene panel were in confirmed BC genes, resulting in a total of 60 (18.1%) in all participants. P/LP variant prevalence was similar across ancestry groups, but VUS prevalence was higher in Black African and Mixed Ancestry than in White participants. In total, 611 VUS were detected, representing 324 distinct variants. 10.8% (9/83) of VUS met ClinGen AF thresholds in genomic data while 10.8% (26/240) in nonguideline genes had an AF > 0.001. Overall, 27.0% of VUS occurrences could potentially be reclassified using African genomic data. Thus, expanding the gene panel yielded few clinically actionable variants but many VUS, particularly in participants of Black African and Mixed Ancestry. However, use of African genomic data has the potential to reclassify a significant proportion of VUS.

Implications of genetic testing and informed consent before and after genetic testing in individuals with cancer

Recent advancements in next generation sequencing have allowed for genetic information become more readily available in the clinical setting for those affected by cancer and by treating clinicians. Given the lack of access to geneticists, medical oncologists and other treating physicians have begun ordering and interpreting genetic tests for individuals with cancer through the process of "mainstreaming". While this process has allowed for quicker access to genetic tests, the process of "mainstreaming" has also brought several challenges including the dissemination of variants of unknown significance results, ordering of appropriate tests, and accurate interpretation of genetic results with appropriate follow-up testing and interventions. In this editorial, we seek to explore the process of informed consent of individuals before obtaining genetic testing and offer potential solutions to optimize the informed consent process including categorization of results as well as a layered consent model.

Variants of uncertain significance in precision oncology: nuance or nuisance?

Variants of unknown significance cause uncertainty for patients and are a challenge for oncologists. This commentary describes 4 clinical examples illustrating these challenges.

Test-takers' perspectives on consumer genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk

Purpose

With few exceptions, research on consumer genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk has focused on tests with limited predictive value and clinical utility. Our study advances the existing literature by exploring the experiences and behaviors of individuals who have taken modern consumer genetic tests for cancer susceptibility that, unlike earlier tests, screen for medically significant variants.

Methods

We interviewed 30 individuals who had undergone consumer genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk between 2014 and 2019. We explored participants' pre-test sentiments (7 items), experiences receiving results (5 items), behavioral and health-related changes (6 items), and attitudes and beliefs (3 items). Data were analyzed for thematic content.

Results

Most participants reported a personal (n = 6) and/or family history (n = 24) of cancer, which influenced their choice to pursue testing. Before testing, most participants did not consult with a physician (n = 25) or receive genetic counseling (n = 23). Nevertheless, the majority felt that they understood test-related information (n = 20) and their results (n = 20), though a considerable number reported experiencing negative emotions related to their results. Most also shared their results with family members (n = 27). Overall, participants' attitudes towards consumer genetic testing for cancer risk were predominantly positive (n = 23).

Conclusion

This study offers new insights into how individuals use and perceive modern consumer genetic tests for hereditary cancer risk, focusing on their perceptions of the risks, benefits, and limitations of these services. Understanding test-takers' perspectives can potentially inform improvements aimed at ensuring that tests meet users' needs and deliver clinically valuable genetic risk assessments.

Genomic Newborn Screening for Pediatric Cancer Predisposition Syndromes: A Holistic Approach

As next-generation sequencing (NGS) has become more widely used, germline and rare genetic variations responsible for inherited illnesses, including cancer predisposition syndromes (CPSs) that account for up to 10% of childhood malignancies, have been found. The CPSs are a group of germline genetic disorders that have been identified as risk factors for pediatric cancer development. Excluding a few "classic" CPSs, there is no agreement regarding when and how to conduct germline genetic diagnostic studies in children with cancer due to the constant evolution of knowledge in NGS technologies. Various clinical screening tools have been suggested to aid in the identification of individuals who are at greater risk, using diverse strategies and with varied outcomes. We present here an overview of the primary clinical and molecular characteristics of various CPSs and summarize the existing clinical genomics data on the prevalence of CPSs in pediatric cancer patients. Additionally, we discuss several ethical issues, challenges, limitations, cost-effectiveness, and integration of genomic newborn screening for CPSs into a healthcare system. Furthermore, we assess the effectiveness of commonly utilized decision-support tools in identifying patients who may benefit from genetic counseling and/or direct genetic testing. This investigation highlights a tailored and systematic approach utilizing medical newborn screening tools such as the genome sequencing of high-risk newborns for CPSs, which could be a practical and cost-effective strategy in pediatric cancer care.

Impact of a Genetic Diagnosis for a Child's Autism on Parental Perceptions

Genetic testing is recommended as part of an autism assessment, and most parents support genetic testing for their minor children. However, the impact on parents of receiving a monogenetic/ copy number variant diagnosis for autism in their child is not well understood. To explore this, we surveyed and interviewed parents of children in the SPARK study, a study of autism that includes genetic testing. Surveys were administered one month before and one and 12 months after parents received their child's genetic result. Interviews were conducted approximately one month after results disclosure. A genetic diagnosis (GD) for their child appeared to reduce parents' sense of self-blame and feelings of guilt, and this impact was relatively stable. The data also indicate a modest impact on parents' actions related to the condition, perceptions of themselves, and some aspects of life planning for their child, as measured by quantitative instruments at one month and 12 months after receipt of results. Other measures of parental identity and expectations for their child, in contrast, showed little change following receipt of genetic findings. Overall, parents who were told that no GD was identified showed minimal changes in their responses over time. These results suggest a discernable but relatively limited impact of genetic test results on parents of children with autism. These results should be reassuring to clinicians caring for children with autism and are consistent with studies in other areas of medicine that have suggested that genetic results tend to have fewer effects-negative or positive-than were anticipated.

Patient perspective in perceived comparative genetic mutation risk: An exploratory review

The genetic risk of chronic diseases represents a complex medical setting in which individuals need to adapt to health conditions that manage daily living towards to healthy behaviours. This exploratory review focused on psychological counselling for genetic risk diagnosis. This study aimed to address the psychological management of the impact of genetic risk on chronic diseases. We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Scopus for articles from May 2012 to August 2023. A descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the included studies was conducted. Based on the exclusion/inclusion criteria, the literature search yielded 250 studies. Seventeen full texts were assessed for eligibility and 207 articles were excluded. Observational (n = 15) and randomised clinical trials (n = 2) were examined. Most studies have been conducted on oncological diagnoses; the emotional dimensions examined have been worry, depression, anxiety and stress in most diseases. Psychological measures are based on self-reports and questionnaires; few studies have investigated the connections between quality of life, psychological traits and emotional dimensions. The complexity of clinics and from daily diagnostic and treatment practices to the everyday experience of those living with the risk of disease might be addressed in counselling settings to improve quality of life in genetic risk, increasing mental adaptation to tailored chronic conditions. Thus, the empowerment of communication of genetic risk information should be part of the general trend towards personalised medicine.

Germline Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer: ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop recommendations for germline mutation testing for patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

An ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) panel convened to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and formal consensus process.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles met eligibility criteria for the germline mutation testing recommendations; 18 for the genetic counseling recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

BRCA1/2 mutation testing should be offered to all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer ≤65 years and select patients >65 years based on personal history, family history, ancestry, or eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy. All patients with recurrent breast cancer who are candidates for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered BRCA1/2 testing, regardless of family history. BRCA1/2 testing should be offered to women who develop a second primary cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast. For patients with prior history of breast cancer and without active disease, testing should be offered to patients diagnosed ≤65 years and selectively in patients diagnosed after 65 years, if it will inform personal and family risk. Testing for high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/2 should be offered to those with supportive family histories; testing for moderate-penetrance genes may be offered if necessary to inform personal and family cancer risk. Patients should be provided enough pretest information for informed consent; those with pathogenic variants should receive individualized post-test counseling. Variants of uncertain significance should not impact management, and patients with such variants should be followed for reclassification. Referral to providers experienced in clinical cancer genetics may help facilitate patient selection and interpretation of expanded testing, and provide counseling of individuals without pathogenic germline variants but with significant family history.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

"Where do I go? Who do I go to?": BRCA Previvors, genetic counselors and family planning

Objective

We sought to understand BRCA previvors' perceptions of communication with genetic counselors and other healthcare providers.

Methods

We conducted 16 qualitative interviews and utilized thematic analysis to develop patterns present in the narratives of previvors.

Results

Interviews with previvors suggest genetic counselors and other providers often make assumptions about previvors' family planning and treatment needs based on perceived gender, age, and sexual orientation.

Conclusion

BRCA patients require individualized attention when planning for their future and making healthcare decisions and we argue that implementing patient-centered care practices into the communication process can provide a higher quality of care.

Innovation

This study offers an innovative lens through which scholars and healthcare providers may examine the experiences of BRCA previvors as they seek adequate care. Asking previvors to explain their perceptions of conversations with genetic counselors and healthcare providers offers insight into the communicative process of seeking care rather than the health outcomes of the care itself. Our findings suggest biases among providers related to gender, age, and sexual orientation are concerning elements of family planning communication that potentially interrupt previvors' abilities to express their care needs in a safe environment. We argue for an increased awareness of, and advocacy for, more inclusive conversations regarding treatment and family planning decisions.

Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent.

METHODS

Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons.

RESULTS

Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result (BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4).

CONCLUSION

Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.

Demographic Characteristics Associated With Perceptions of Personal Utility in Genetic and Genomic Testing: A Systematic Review

Importance

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing in health care has led to recognition that these tests provide personal as well as clinical utility to patients and families. However, available systematic reviews on this topic have not reported the demographic backgrounds of participants in studies of personal utility, leaving generalizability unclear.

Objective

To determine the demographic characteristics of participants in studies examining the personal utility of genetic and genomic testing in health care.

Evidence Review

For this systematic review, we utilized and updated the results of a highly cited 2017 systematic review on the personal utility of genetics and genomics, which identified relevant articles published between January 1, 2003, and August 4, 2016. We also used the original methods to update this bibliography with literature published subsequently up to January 1, 2022. Studies were screened for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. Eligible studies reported empirical data on the perspectives of patients, family members, and/or the general public in the US on the personal utility of any type of health-related genetic or genomic test. We utilized a standardized codebook to extract study and participant characteristics. We summarized demographic characteristics descriptively across all studies and by subgroup based on study and participant characteristics.

Findings

We included 52 studies with 13 251 eligible participants. Sex or gender was the most frequently reported demographic characteristic (48 studies [92.3%]), followed by race and ethnicity (40 studies [76.9%]), education (38 studies [73.1%]), and income (26 studies [50.0%]). Across studies, participants disproportionately were women or female (mean [SD], 70.8% [20.5%]), were White (mean [SD], 76.1% [22.0%]), had a college degree or higher (mean [SD], 64.5% [19.9%]), and reported income above the US median (mean [SD], 67.4% [19.2%]). Examination of subgroups of results by study and participant characteristics evidenced only small shifts in demographic characteristics.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review examined the demographic characteristics of individual participants in studies of the personal utility of health-related genetic and genomic testing in the US. The results suggest that participants in these studies were disproportionately White, college-educated women with above-average income. Understanding the perspectives of more diverse individuals regarding the personal utility of genetic and genomic testing may inform barriers to research recruitment and uptake of clinical testing in currently underrepresented populations.

vaRHC: an R package for semi-automation of variant classification in hereditary cancer genes according to ACMG/AMP and gene-specific ClinGen guidelines

MOTIVATION

Germline variant classification allows accurate genetic diagnosis and risk assessment. However, it is a tedious iterative process integrating information from several sources and types of evidence. It should follow gene-specific (if available) or general updated international guidelines. Thus, it is the main burden of the incorporation of next-generation sequencing into the clinical setting.

RESULTS

We created the vaRiants in HC (vaRHC) R package to assist the process of variant classification in hereditary cancer by: (i) collecting information from diverse databases; (ii) assigning or denying different types of evidence according to updated American College of Molecular Genetics and Genomics/Association of Molecular Pathologist gene-specific criteria for ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, PTEN, and TP53 and general criteria for other genes; (iii) providing an automated classification of variants using a Bayesian metastructure and considering CanVIG-UK recommendations; and (iv) optionally printing the output to an .xlsx file. A validation using 659 classified variants demonstrated the robustness of vaRHC, presenting a better criteria assignment than Cancer SIGVAR, an available similar tool.

AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION

The source code can be consulted in the GitHub repository (https://github.com/emunte/vaRHC) Additionally, it will be submitted to CRAN soon.

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.

Women's thoughts on receiving and sharing genetic information: Considerations for genetic counseling

Indications for genetic testing for inherited cancer syndromes are expanding both in the academic and the community setting. However, only a fraction of individuals who are candidates for testing pursue this option. Therefore, it is important to understand those factors that impact the uptake of genetic testing in individuals affected and unaffected with cancer. A successful translation of genomic risk stratification into clinical care will require that providers of this information are aware of the attitudes, perceived risks and benefits, and concerns of individuals who will be considering testing. The purpose of this study was to assess beliefs, attitudes and preferences for genetic risk information, by personal characteristics of women affected and unaffected by breast cancer enrolled in the Breast Cancer Family Registry Cohort. Data for this analysis came from eight survey questions, which asked participants (N = 9,048, 100% female) about their opinions regarding genetic information. Women reported that conveying the accuracy of the test was important and were interested in information related to personal level of risk, finding out about diseases that could be treated, and information that could be helpful to their families. Young women were most interested in how their own health needs might be impacted by genetic test results, while older women were more interested in how genetic information would benefit other members of the family. Interest in how the genetic test was performed was highest among Asian and Hispanic women. Women affected with breast cancer were more likely to report feeling sad about possibly passing down a breast cancer gene, while unaffected women were more uncertain about their future risk of cancer. The variety of informational needs identified has implications for how genetic counselors can tailor communication to individuals considering genetic testing.

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.

Hereditary variants of unknown significance in African American women with breast cancer

Expanded implementation of genetic sequencing has precipitously increased the discovery of germline and somatic variants. The direct benefit of identifying variants in actionable genes may lead to risk reduction strategies such as increased surveillance, prophylactic surgery, as well as lifestyle modifications to reduce morbidity and mortality. However, patients with African ancestry are more likely to receive inconclusive genetic testing results due to an increased number of variants of unknown significance decreasing the utility and impact on disease management and prevention. This study examines whole exome sequencing results from germline DNA samples in African American women with a family history of cancer including 37 cases that were diagnosed with breast cancer and 51 family members. Self-identified ancestry was validated and compared to the 1000 genomes population. The analysis of sequencing results was limited to 85 genes from three clinically available common genetic screening platforms. This target region had a total of 993 variants of which 6 (<1%) were pathogenic or likely pathogenic, 736 (74.1%) were benign, and 170 (17.1%) were classified as a variant of unknown significance. There was an average of 3.4±1.8 variants with an unknown significance per individual and 85 of 88 individuals (96.6%) harbored at least one of these in the targeted genes. Pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were only found in 6 individuals for the BRCA1 (p.R1726fs, rs80357867), BRCA2 (p.K589fs, rs397507606 & p.L2805fs, rs397507402), RAD50 (p.E995fs, rs587780154), ATM (p.V2424G, rs28904921), or MUTYH (p.G396D, rs36053993) genes. Strategies to functionally validate the remaining variants of unknown significance, especially in understudied and hereditary cancer populations, are greatly needed to increase the clinical utility and utilization of clinical genetic screening platforms to reduce cancer incidence and mortality.

Validation of the Knowledge of Genome Sequencing (KOGS) scale in cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

The Knowledge of Genome Sequencing (KOGS) questionnaire was recently developed to measure knowledge of genomic sequencing (GS), with preliminary psychometric data supporting its reliability and validity. The aim of this study was to test the reliability and validity of the KOGS in a larger sample, and to confirm its utility in a cancer setting.

METHODS

The Genetic Cancer Risk in the Young (RisC) study recruits participants with a personal history of cancer, to investigate heritable cancer causes and future cancer risk using germline GS. Participants (n = 261) in a psychosocial substudy of RisC completed a questionnaire after consent to RisC but before GS, including the KOGS, the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, the Chew health literacy scale and items assessing demographic and disease variables. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Cronbach alpha and correlational analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

The CFA testing a single-factor model yielded a good model fit, χ2/df = 2.43, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.97, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07 and weighted mean root square (WRMR) = 1.03. Factor loadings of all items were above 0.60 and ranged between.66 and.93. The single factor score demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.82). KOGS scores were significantly associated with health literacy (r = 0.23, p < .001), having a university education [t(258) = -4.53, p < .001] and having a medical or science background [t(259) = -3.52, p < .001] but not with speaking a language other than English at home, time since diagnosis, previous genetic counselling/testing or intolerance of uncertainty.

DISCUSSION

This study confirmed a single-factor structure for the KOGS, and its reliability and validity in a cancer population. Associations with measures of health literacy and education were significant and positive as expected, supporting the KOG's construct validity. Previous genetic counselling may not be sufficient to provide specific knowledge of GS.

Influence of germline test results on surgical decision making in women with invasive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

While therapeutic mastectomy with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (TM+CPM) and/or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) are recommended for women with pathogenic variants (PV) in some cancer predisposition genes, evidence for the utility of these surgeries for women with PV in other genes currently is insufficient. In conjunction, current guidelines recommend that clinical management should not be influenced by a return of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). Return of germline test results may, however, influence surgical decision making regardless of current guidelines. We thus evaluated surgical choices amongst a cohort of women with invasive breast cancer who underwent clinical genetic testing.

METHODS

Germline test results and all surgical procedures were extracted for women who had unilateral invasive breast cancer and had clinical testing before definitive surgery (n = 591). Results were classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic (PV, 17.1%), VUS (19.5%) or benign/likely benign (63.4%). Data were analyzed using chi-square tests with p<0.05 defining significance.

RESULTS

Rates of TM+CPM and BSO were not significantly different for women with VUS compared to those with benign findings. Rates of TM+CPM were significantly higher for women with PV in BRCA1 and BRCA2, PALB2, PTEN and TP53, as well in genes with insufficient data to recommend risk-reducing mastectomy. Rates of BSO were significantly higher in women with PV in BRCA1 and BRCA2, PALB2, PTEN and TP53 and BRIP1, RAD51C and RAD51D compared to those with benign findings.

CONCLUSION

Overall, surgical choices for women with a VUS were more similar to those from women with benign variants than to those with PV, however, in the group with PV in genes for which insufficient evidence exists for the benefit of risk-reducing mastectomy, rates of TM+CPM were high. Thus, while the management of women with VUS is in agreement with ACMG guidelines, patients with mutations in other cancer genes demonstrate a preference for more aggressive breast surgeries.

Distress facing increased genetic risk of cancer: The role of social support and emotional suppression

OBJECTIVES

Healthy individuals from hereditary cancer families undergoing genetic testing for cancer susceptibility (GTC) report more distress when they perceive their social support as low and suppress their emotions. This study aimed to explore how suppressing emotions and perceiving others as unsupportive are related with cancer-risk distress.

METHODS

We performed a regression-based mediation analysis to assess if expressive suppression mediates or is mediated by perceived social support in the relation with cancer-risk distress. Participants were 125 healthy adults aged over 18 (M = 36.07, SD = 12.86), mostly female (72,4%), who undergone GTC to assess the presence of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndromes.

RESULTS

Controlling for age and gender, we found a moderate size indirect effect of social support on cancer-risk distress through expressive suppression (β = -0.095) and a direct effect of expressive suppression on cancer-risk distress.

CONCLUSIONS

When healthy individuals from hereditary cancer families perceive their social network as less responsive, they tend to not express their emotions, which relates to increased distress facing GTC.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Practitioners may assess cancer-risk related distress before the GTC and offer distressed individuals interventions focused on changing emotion regulation strategies in a safe group context.

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.

The role of emotional sensitivity to probability in the decision to choose genetic testing

While the availability of genetic testing is rapidly increasing, many opt out of testing. The decision to test or not is emotionally charged, and both clinical research and theoretical work in psychology show that in emotional decisions, people often struggle to interpret and utilize risk information. Clinical research on genetic testing uptake also shows that feeling overwhelmed by numeric information may be a deterrent to testing. However, recent psychological research indicates that some portion of the population has greater emotional sensitivity to probability, (i.e., the extent to which emotional reactions to risk depend on probabilities) than others. We hypothesize that participants high in emotional sensitivity to probability will be more interested in genetic testing as an opportunity to seek greater precision in risk estimates and that this relationship is moderated by the testing context itself. In an online survey of a nationally representative sample (not recruited as patients), participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario describing a suspected diagnosis with an option for genetic testing. The scenario experimentally varied the pre-test probability estimate of the diagnosis (low or high) and whether the test results would result in certainty (ruling in or ruling out the diagnosis), or reduced uncertainty (providing a more precise individual risk estimate). Results indicated that emotional sensitivity to probability was a strong predictor of intention to test, particularly when the test allowed participants to rule out a diagnosis, reducing an already low probability to zero. These results highlight the way patients' individual characteristics interact with the testing context to guide decision-making and provide important insight into the way patients integrate risk probability information into intensely emotional decisions.

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.

Reflex BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumour genetic testing for high-grade serous ovarian cancer: streamlined for clinicians but what do patients think?

BACKGROUND

Reflex (automatic) BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic testing of tumour tissue is being completed for all newly diagnosed high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) in the province of Ontario, Canada. The objective of this study was to measure the psychological impact of tumour genetic testing among individuals with a new diagnosis of HGSOC.

METHODS

Participants had a new diagnosis of HGSOC and received reflex BRCA1/2 tumour genetic testing as a component of their care. Eligible individuals were recruited from two oncology centres in Toronto, Canada. One week after disclosure of tumour genetic test results, consenting participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that measured cancer-related distress, dispositional optimism, knowledge of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer, recall of tumour genetic test results, satisfaction, and the psychological impact of receiving tumour genetic test results. The Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire was used to measure the psychological impact of tumour genetic testing.

RESULTS

76 individuals completed the study survey; 13 said they did not receive their tumour test results. Of the remaining 63 participants, the average MICRA score was 26.8 (SD = 16.3). Higher total MICRA scores were seen among those with children (p = 0.02), who received treatment with primary surgery (p = 0.02), and had higher reported cancer-related distress (p < 0.001). Higher dispositional optimism (p < 0.001) and increasing age (p = 0.03) were associated with lower total MICRA scores. Most (83.5%) participants reported being satisfied/highly satisfied with having tumour testing completed; however, 40.8% could not accurately recall their tumor test results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to assess psychological outcomes following reflex BRCA1/2 tumour genetic testing in women newly diagnosed with HGSOC. Increased dispositional optimism provided a protective effect, while increased cancer-related distress increased the psychological impact of tumour genetic testing. Educational resources are needed to help increase patient understanding and recall of tumour results, particularly when tumour genetic testing includes analysis of genes that may have implications for hereditary cancer risk. Additional research is required to better understand the patient experience of reflex tumour genetic testing.

Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

A fundamental ethical challenge in conducting genomics research is the question of what and how individual level genetic findings and aggregate genomic results should be conveyed to research participants and communities. This is within the context of minimal guidance, policies, and experiences, particularly in Africa. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders' on returning genomics research results to participants in Kenya.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with 69 stakeholders. The purposively selected participants, included research ethics committee (REC) members (8), community members (44), community resource persons (8), and researchers (9). A semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate discussions. Six FGDs and twenty-five (IDIs) were conducted among the different stakeholders. The issues explored in the interviews included: (1) views on returning results, (2) kind of results to be returned, (3) value of returning results to participants, and (4) challenges anticipated in returning results to participants and communities. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded in Nvivo 12 pro. Thematic and content analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants agreed on the importance of returning genomic results either as individual or aggregate results. The most cited reasons for returning of genomic results included recognizing participants' contribution to research, encouraging participation in future research, and increasing the awareness of scientific progress. Other aspects on how genomic research results should be shared included sharing easy to understand results in the shortest time possible and maintaining confidentiality when sharing sensitive results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified key stakeholders' perspectives on returning genomic results at the individual and community levels in two urban informal settlements of Nairobi. The majority of the participants expect to receive feedback about their genomic results, and it is an obligation for researchers to see how to best fulfil it.

Cancer patient knowledge about and behavioral intentions after germline genome sequencing

OBJECTIVES

Germline genome sequencing (GS) is becoming mainstream in cancer diagnosis and risk management. Identifying knowledge gaps and determinants of health behavior change intentions will enable effective targeting of educational and management strategies to translate genomic findings into improved cancer outcomes.

METHODS

Probands diagnosed with cancer of likely genetic origin that consented to but not yet undergone GS, and their biological relatives, completed a cross-sectional questionnaire assessing GS knowledge and hypothetical intention to change behaviors.

RESULTS

Probands (n = 348; 57% university educated) and relatives (n = 213; 38% university educated) had moderate GS knowledge levels, with greater knowledge associated with higher education. Both populations reported high behavioral change intentions, significantly associated with being female (p = 0.01) and greater perceived importance of GS (p < 0.001), and for probands: being from English-speaking households (p = 0.003), higher socio-economic status (p = 0.01) and greater self-efficacy (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing GS knowledge will enable realistic participant expectations surrounding germline GS. Actual behavior change should be monitored to determine whether increased cancer risk knowledge results in altered cancer-related behavior and ultimately, cancer outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Educational resources should target specific populations to ensure informed decision-making and expectation management. Support tools facilitating and maintaining behavioral change may be needed to achieve improved cancer patient outcomes.

Racial and ethnic variation in multigene panel testing in a cohort of BRCA1/2-negative individuals who had genetic testing in a large urban comprehensive cancer center

Background

There is sparse clinical information on the racial and ethnic distribution of results of multigene panel testing among individuals at high risk for hereditary cancer.

Methods

We evaluated the results of multigene panel testing across eight clinical sites across the state of Michigan for individuals seen for genetic counseling from May 13, 2013 to October 31, 2019 at the Karmanos Cancer Institute's cancer genetics clinic. We estimated the prevalence of pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) from genes other than BRCA1/2 among individuals of non‐Hispanic White (NHW), Black or African American (AA), Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ), Arab, Hispanic, and other ancestry.

Results

The racial and ethnic distribution of 2419 individuals who had panel testing included 68.8% NHW, 22.1% AA, 2.3% Arab, 2.2% AJ, 1.0% Hispanic, and 3.6% other. Of these, 11.2% had pathogenic variants and 17.5% had VUS. After multivariable analyses, compared to NHW, AA were less likely to have pathogenic variants (OR 95% CI, 0.38, 0.24–0.59, p < 0.001). Both AA and Arabs were more likely to have VUS (OR 95% CI, 1.53, 1.18–1.98, p = 0.001 and OR 95% CI, 2.28, 1.17–4.43, p = 0.015, respectively). There were no significant differences for other groups. The most common pathogenic variants were CHEK2 (n = 65), MUTYH (n = 45), ATM (n = 28), and MSH2 (n = 22); the most common pathogenic variants by race and ethnicity were CHEK2 (NHW), MSH2 and MUTYH (AA), MSH2 (Arab), MSH6 and CHEK2 (AJ), and MLH1 (Hispanic); the most common pathogenic variants by primary cancer site were CHEK2 (breast), MSH2 (colon), BRIP1 and MUTYH (ovarian), and MSH2 and MSH6 (endometrial).

Conclusions

Understanding the racial and ethnic distribution of pathogenic variants in multi‐gene panels has the potential to lead to better identification of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer.

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.

Large-scale group genetic counseling: Evaluation of a novel service delivery model in a Canadian hereditary cancer clinic

Increasing demand for genetic services has led to the development of streamlined genetic counseling (GC) models. We piloted large-scale group pre-test GC with up to 50 patients per group and compared this to a traditional one-on-one approach. Patients referred to the British Columbia (BC) Cancer Hereditary Cancer Program were eligible if they had: (a) family history meeting our program's referral criteria; (b) no relevant personal history of cancer; (c) no prior genetic testing in the family; and (d) no living testable relative in BC. Patient-reported outcome measures included: (a) Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS) prior to pre-test GC (T1) and at 4 weeks post-test GC (T2); (b) Satisfaction Survey after pre-test GC; and (c) the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) for patients undergoing testing (4 weeks after post-test GC). In total, 391 patients underwent GC, 184 by group and 207 by one-on-one appointments. Between May 2018 and May 2019, 6 pre-test group sessions were conducted (median number of patients per group = 28; range 15-48). 8% of patients (n = 32) declined large group GC due to personal preference for one-on-one GC. There were no statistically significant differences in MICRA and GCOS survey results when comparing the pre-test large group versus traditional pre-test one-on-one models (based on 3 MICRA subscales: p = 0.063, p = 0.612, p = 0.842; and GCOS p = 0.169). Overall, the large group pre-test counseling approach was more time-efficient with 15-48 patient group sessions conducted over a mean duration of 80 min as compared to 42 min per patient with the traditional one-on-one GC model. Large-scale group GC was feasible and acceptable to patients and represents a novel streamlined model for GC to enable timely access to cancer genetic services.

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.

Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Advances in genetics and sequencing technologies are enabling the identification of more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility who could benefit from tailored screening and prevention recommendations. While cancer family history information is used in primary care settings to identify unaffected patients who could benefit from a cancer genetics evaluation, this information is underutilized. System-level population health management strategies are needed to assist health care systems in identifying patients who may benefit from genetic services. In addition, because of the limited number of trained genetics specialists and increasing patient volume, the development of innovative and sustainable approaches to delivering cancer genetic services is essential.

METHODS

We are conducting a randomized controlled trial, entitled Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services (BRIDGE), to address these needs. The trial is comparing uptake of genetic counseling, uptake of genetic testing, and patient adherence to management recommendations for automated, patient-directed versus enhanced standard of care cancer genetics services delivery models. An algorithm-based system that utilizes structured cancer family history data available in the electronic health record (EHR) is used to identify unaffected patients who receive primary care at the study sites and meet current guidelines for cancer genetic testing. We are enrolling eligible patients at two healthcare systems (University of Utah Health and New York University Langone Health) through outreach to a randomly selected sample of 2780 eligible patients in the two sites, with 1:1 randomization to the genetic services delivery arms within sites. Study outcomes are assessed through genetics clinic records, EHR, and two follow-up questionnaires at 4 weeks and 12 months after last genetic counseling contactpre-test genetic counseling.

DISCUSSION

BRIDGE is being conducted in two healthcare systems with different clinical structures and patient populations. Innovative aspects of the trial include a randomized comparison of a chatbot-based genetic services delivery model to standard of care, as well as identification of at-risk individuals through a sustainable EHR-based system. The findings from the BRIDGE trial will advance the state of the science in identification of unaffected patients with inherited cancer susceptibility and delivery of genetic services to those patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

BRIDGE is registered as NCT03985852 . The trial was registered on June 6, 2019 at clinicaltrials.gov .

Racial and Ethnic Differences in BRCA1/2 and Multigene Panel Testing Among Young Breast Cancer Patients

Genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) is recommended for breast cancer patients diagnosed at age ≤ 50 years. Our objective was to examine racial/ethnic differences in genetic testing frequency and results among diverse breast cancer patients. A retrospective cohort study among women diagnosed with breast cancer at age ≤ 50 years from January 2007 to December 2017 at Columbia University in New York, NY. Among 1503 diverse young breast cancer patients, nearly half (46.2%) completed HBOC genetic testing. Genetic testing completion was associated with younger age, family history of breast cancer, and earlier stage, but not race/ethnicity or health insurance status. Blacks had the highest frequency of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants (18.6%), and Hispanics and Asians had the most variants of uncertain significance (VUS), 19.0% and 21.9%, respectively. The percentage of women undergoing genetic testing increased over time from 15.3% in 2007 to a peak of 72.8% in 2015. Over the same time period, there was a significant increase in P/LP and VUS results. Due to uncertainty about the clinical implications of P/LP variants in moderate penetrance genes and VUSs, our findings underscore the need for targeted genetic counseling education, particularly among young minority breast cancer patients.

Uncertainty following an inconclusive result from the BRCA1/2 genetic test: A review about psychological outcomes

BACKGROUND

An inconclusive result from BRCA1/2 genetic testing indicates that a genetic variant of uncertain significance is detected. This case constitutes the majority of genetic test results, but studies specifically addressing the psychological adjustment of people with inconclusive results are scarce.

AIM

To examine psychological outcomes of receiving an uninformative BRCA1/2 test result.

METHODS

PubMed, PsychInfo, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were screened for studies focusing on distress, anxiety, and depression levels in individuals with inconclusive genetic test results. This review is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses method.

RESULTS

Studies on psychological outcomes of inconclusive BRCA1/2 focused on general and specific distress, anxiety, and depression. Overall, they produced mixed results. These inconsistent findings are probably due to the uncertainty caused by this type of result, that may also influence the decisions of individuals about surveillance and prophylactic options, reducing their compliance. In addition, this review highlights specific risk and protective factors that affect psychological adjustment in individuals with an inconclusive genetic testing result.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with inconclusive genetic test results need specific educational programs and support to better understand the meaning of their results in order to be able to make decisions about surveillance and prophylactic options.

Genetic Variation and the Role of Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast Cancer: A Single-Institution Experience

Background

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women. There are multiple pathogenic mutations in addition to BRCA1/2 that are implicated in causing hereditary breast cancer.

Methods and results

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1568 patients with breast cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. The age range is 23-87. Among the study population, 26% had genetic testing and 8% of those were found to carry a pathogenic variant, as designated in NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) Guidelines. Of that 8%, 3.4% were BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, and the rest were other prevalent pathogenic variants.

Discussion

Expanded panel testing has the potential to increase the detection rate of pathogenic variants compared to testing for BRCA1/2 alone. Diagnostic accuracy of genetic causes of breast cancer has a significant clinical impact on patients and their families in terms of targeted treatment and prevention strategies. There is a strong need for further understanding of genetic patterns and variations in hereditary breast cancer. Awareness of the possibility of moderate to low penetrance genes and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) is important to assist with appropriate genetic counseling. We believe that physicians should consider re-testing with an expanded panel if patients previously had BRCA1 and BRCA2 testings only with a negative result as it may identify additional mutations.

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.

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.

Mainstreaming informed consent for genomic sequencing: A call for action

The wider availability of genomic sequencing, notably gene panels, in cancer care allows for personalised medicine or the tailoring of clinical management to the genetic characteristics of tumours. While the primary aim of mainstream genomic sequencing of cancer patients is therapy-focussed, genomic testing may yield three types of results beyond the answer to the clinical question: suspected germline mutations, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and unsolicited findings pertaining to other conditions. Ideally, patients should be prepared beforehand for the clinical and psychosocial consequences of such findings, for themselves and for their family members, and be given the opportunity to autonomously decide whether or not to receive such unsolicited genomic information. When genomic tests are mainstreamed into cancer care, so should accompanying informed consent practices. This paper outlines what mainstream oncologists may learn from the ethical tradition of informed consent for genomic sequencing, as developed within clinical genetics. It argues that mainstream informed consent practices should focus on preparing patients for three types of unsolicited outcomes, briefly and effectively. Also, it argues that when the chance of unsolicited findings is very low, opt-out options need not be actively offered. The use of a layered approach - integrated in information systems - should render informed consent feasible for non-geneticist clinicians in mainstream settings. (Inter) national guidelines for mainstreaming informed consent for genomic sequencing must be developed.

Knowledge and psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing among individuals with ovarian cancer

In a sample of individuals with ovarian cancer, we aimed to (a) identify factors associated with the psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing, (b) identify factors associated with cancer genetics knowledge, and (c) summarize patient-reported recommendations to improve the genetic counseling and multigene panel testing process. Eligible participants in this secondary analysis of quantitative and qualitative survey data were English-speaking adults with ovarian cancer. Psychosocial impact was assessed using the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Knowledge of cancer genetics was assessed using the KnowGene scale. Significant predictors of MICRA and KnowGene scores were identified using multiple regression. Open-ended survey item responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Eighty-seven participants met eligibility criteria. A positive genetic test result was associated with greater adverse psychosocial impact (B = 1.13, p = 0.002). Older age (B = - 0.07, p = 0.044) and being a member of a minority racial or ethnic group (B = - 3.075, p = 0.033) were associated with lower knowledge, while a personal history of at least one other type of cancer (B = 1.975, p = 0.015) was associated with higher knowledge. In open-ended item responses, participants wanted clinicians to assist with family communication, improve result disclosure, and enhance patient and family understanding of results. A subset of individuals with ovarian cancer who receive a positive genetic test result may be at risk for adverse psychosocial outcomes. Tailored cancer genetics education is necessary to promote the equitable uptake of targeted ovarian cancer treatment and risk-reducing therapies. Interventions to enhance patient-clinician communication in this setting are a research priority.

Genetic testing for pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: SDHx carriers' experiences

Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma are frequently hereditary tumors commonly associated with succinate dehydrogenase (SDHx) pathogenic variants (PV). Genetic testing is recommended to relatives of patients carrying SDHx PV. This study aims to explore the experiences associated with genetic testing for this hereditary condition. Semi-structured interviews with 38 SDHx PV (tumor-affected and non-affected) carriers were transcribed and content-analyzed. Four ways of living with this genetic alteration emerged from the interviews: 'living as if not knowing', 'preventing others from going through this', 'feeling privileged', and 'still suffering'. Within each, negative, neutral, and positive reactions to the actual test result emerged initially, in addition to blame and guilt. Recognition of the importance of the genetic test and of the follow-up occurred in all four, but views on fecundity were divided between having and not having children. Consideration for the four different meanings of carrying an SDHx PV can improve participants' experiences and clinical practice.

"Is that something that should concern me?": a qualitative exploration of parent understanding of their child's genomic test results

Genetic counselors are trained to deliver complicated genomic test results to parents of pediatric patients. However, there is limited knowledge on how parents perceive this information and what they understand about the results. This research aims to qualitatively explore parents’ experiences receiving genomic test results for their children. As part of formative research for the NYCKidSeq Study, we recruited a purposive sample of parents of 22 children stratified by child race/ethnicity and test result classification (positive, uncertain, or negative) and conducted in-depth interviews using a semi-structured guide. Analysis was conducted using grounded theory’s constant comparative method across cases and themes. Parents described different elements of understanding: genetics knowledge; significance and meaning of positive, uncertain, or negative results; and implications for the health of their child and family. Parents reported challenges understanding technical details and significance of their child’s results but gladly allowed their providers to be custodians of this information. However, of the different elements of understanding described, parents cared most deeply about being able to understand implications for their child’s and family’s health. These findings suggest that a counseling approach that primarily addresses parents’ desire to understand how to best care for their child and family may be more appropriate than an information-heavy approach focused on technical details. Further research is warranted to confirm these findings in larger parent cohorts and to explore ways genetic counseling can support parents’ preferences without sacrificing important components of parent understanding and overall satisfaction with their experiences with genomic medicine.

Challenges of Genomic Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancers

Completion of genetic testing is increasingly important for the complex care of patients with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancers (HBOC) and their at-risk family members. Identification of individuals with pathogenic variants has implications for targeted treatment recommendations, risk reduction strategies, increased surveillance recommendations, as well as the genetic testing of family members, known as cascade testing or screening. Due to advances in technology and decreasing costs, what was once single-gene genetic testing has evolved into large-scale multi-gene panel genomic testing. As germline genomic testing for HBOC becomes more and more available, it is important to identify the challenges that are associated with its use. In this manuscript, we review the current issues faced by germline genomic testing for HBOC which include effectively managing the marked increases in genetic referrals, interpreting the vast amount of information yielded by newer testing methods such as next generation sequencing (NGS), recognizing the need for better cascade screening strategies, potential exacerbation of health disparities and improving support for patients navigating the emotional impact related to positive, negative and indeterminate testing results.

Should All Individuals Be Screened for Genetic Predisposition to Cancer?

Collapse

Outcomes of genetic test disclosure and genetic counseling in a large Parkinson's disease research study

Genetic testing for Parkinson's disease (PD) is growing as interventional clinical trials begin to enroll participants with PD who carry pathogenic variants in the LRRK2 or GBA genes. However, the impact of receiving genetic test results and the satisfaction with receiving genetic counseling among PD populations have not yet been studied. The purpose of this study was to evaluate (1) the psychological impact of genetic testing for PD and (2) satisfaction with genetic counseling. Surveyed participants (N = 875) were individuals with PD or at risk of developing PD, initially recruited for the Parkinson's Progression Marker Initiative (PPMI) study and currently enrolled in the Widespread Recruitment Initiative (WRI) at Indiana University. Individuals were surveyed following genetic test disclosure and genetic counseling regarding results from targeted testing for pathogenic variants in the LRRK2 and GBA genes. Participants were surveyed via two tools: a modified version of the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment Survey (M-MICRA), which measured the psychological impact of genetic testing and the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Survey (GCSS). Participants were divided into affected/unaffected and variant positive/negative groups for subset analyses. The majority of participants had favorable M-MICRA scores and were satisfied with the disclosure of the genetic test results and genetic counseling for PD. However, participants with PD and those with pathogenic variants had less favorable M-MICRA scores and lower satisfaction scores compared to those without disease or pathogenic variants. This information is valuable to providers performing genetic testing of and genetic counseling to people and families affected with PD. Individuals with PD and individuals with pathogenic variants may benefit from additional interventions.

Informed Consent for Genetic and Genomic Research

Genetic research often utilizes or generates information that is potentially sensitive to individuals, families, or communities. For these reasons, genetic research may warrant additional scrutiny from investigators and governmental regulators, compared to other types of biomedical research. The informed consent process should address the range of social and psychological issues that may arise in genetic research. This article addresses a number of these issues, including recruitment of participants, disclosure of results, psychological impact of results, insurance and employment discrimination, community engagement, consent for tissue banking, and intellectual property issues. Points of consideration are offered to assist in the development of protocols and consent processes in light of contemporary debates on a number of these issues. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Oncology Advanced Practitioners and Breast Cancer Prevention

One in eight American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Advanced practitioners in oncology can offer risk assessments, counseling, genetic testing, and make both behavioral and pharmacologic recommendations for breast cancer risk reduction. The role of oncology advanced practitioners in conjunction with genetic counselors is key in what is now considered the standard of care. This article will summarize the current state of breast cancer prevention and the role of oncology advanced practitioners.

Predictive testing for neurodegenerative diseases in the age of next-generation sequencing

The availability and cost of next-generation sequencing (NSG) now allow testing large numbers of genes simultaneously. However, the gold standard for predictive testing has been to test only for a known family mutation or confirmed family disease. The goal of this study was to investigate the psychological impact of predictive testing for autosomal dominant neurodegenerative diseases without a known family mutation using next-generation sequencing panels compared to single-gene testing of a known family mutation. Fourteen individuals from families with a known mutation and 10 individuals with unknown family mutations participated. Participants completed questionnaires on demographics, genetic knowledge, and psychological measures of anxiety, depression, perceived personal control, rumination, and intolerance to uncertainty at baseline and 1 and 6 months after receiving results. Decision regret was measured 1 and 6 months after receiving results. Participants completed a modified Huntington disease genetic testing protocol with genetic counseling and neurological and psychological evaluation. Genetic testing of either the known family mutation or an NGS panel of neurodegenerative disease genes was performed. Semi-structured interviews were performed at 6 months post-results about their experience. Two-sample t tests were performed on data collected at each time point to identify significant between-group differences in demographic variables, baseline psychological scores, and baseline genetic knowledge scores. Within-group change over time was assessed by a mixed-effects model. Results of this study indicate that NGS panels for predictive testing for neurodegenerative disease are safe and beneficial to participants when performed within a modified HD protocol. Though significant differences in psychological outcomes were found, these differences may have been driven by genetic results and baseline psychological differences between individuals within the groups. Participants did not regret their decision to test and were largely pleased with the testing protocol.

Psychometric Properties of the MICRA Questionnaire in Portuguese Individuals Carrying SDHx Mutations

This study aims to present the translation and cultural adaptation, as well as the psychometric characteristics of the Portuguese version of the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire in individuals with SDHx mutations. The questionnaire was translated and culturally adapted in accordance with the process recommended by the World Health Organization. As per suggestion of the authors of the original instrument, a joint, universal European and Brazilian Portuguese version of the MICRA was created. Ninety-six (asymptomatic or affected) patients with SDHx mutations nationwide completed the adapted version of the MICRA in Portugal. Analyses consisted of confirmatory factor analysis, reliability estimation (alphas), and correlations with two other distress and quality of life instruments. The Portuguese adaptation of the MICRA was understandable to patients from various socioeconomic backgrounds. All items and factor structure of the original version were retained, yielding a good model fit. The MICRA's three subscales and total score showed good internal consistency, and the correlations found between the Portuguese version of the MICRA and the other instruments assessing similar constructs further supported its validity. The adapted version of the MICRA showed good psychometric properties with a representative population of SDHx mutation carriers. This instrument can now be used to study the multidimensional impact of taking a genetic test for these mutations. It can also be used in future studies with other Portuguese populations of patients submitted to genetic tests for cancer risk assessment.

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.