Low rates of cascade genetic testing among families with hereditary gynecologic cancer: An opportunity to improve cancer prevention

How hereditary cancer risk disclosure to relatives is handled in practice - Patient perspectives from a Swedish cancer genetics clinic

OBJECTIVES

Hereditary cancer risks can be effectively managed if at-risk relatives enroll in surveillance and preventive care. Family-mediated risk disclosure has internationally been shown to be incomplete, selective and leave over a third of eligible at-risk individuals without access to genetic counseling. We explored patients handling of cancer risk information in practice.

METHODS

We conducted twelve semi-structured interviews with patients who had completed their genetic counseling and been asked to disclose risk information to relatives. Questions were designed to investigate lived experiences of communicating hereditary risk and focused on disclosure strategies, intrafamilial interactions and emotional responses.

RESULTS

Qualitative content analysis yielded five categories. These span personal fears, shared responsibilities, feeling of empowerment, innovative solutions and unmet needs. Patients put high value on collaboration with their genetic healthcare professionals but also solicited better overview of the counseling process and more personalized, case-tailored information.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results add novel insights about the practical strategies employed by genetic counselees and their motivations behind disclosing hereditary risk information to relatives.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A patient-centered cancer genetics care would clarify roles and responsibilities around risk disclosure, inform counselees about the process upfront and tailor information to offer case-specific data with the family's inheritance pattern explained.

Cascade testing for hereditary cancer in Singapore: how population genomics help guide clinical policy

Hereditary Cancer makes up around 5-10% of all cancers. It is important to diagnose hereditary cancer in a timely fashion, as not only do patients require long-term care from a young age, but their relatives also require management. The main approach to capture at-risk relatives is cascade testing. It involves genetic testing of relatives of the first detected carrier of a pathogenic variant in a family i.e. the proband. The current standard of care for cascade testing is a patient-mediated approach. Probands are then advised to inform and encourage family members to undergo genetic testing. In Singapore, cascade testing is inefficient, around 10-15%, lower than the 30% global average. Here, we describe the cascade testing process and its effort to increase testing in Singapore. Precision Health Research, Singapore (PRECISE), was set up to coordinate Singapore's National Precision Medicine strategy and has awarded five clinical implementation pilots, with one of them seeking to identify strategies for how cascade testing for hereditary cancer can be increased in a safe and cost-efficient manner. Achieving this will be done through addressing barriers such as cost, manpower shortages, exploring a digital channel for contacting at-risk relatives, and getting a deeper insight into why genetic testing gets declined. If successful, it will likely result in care pathways that are a cost-effective public health intervention for identifying individuals at risk. Surveillance and management of those unaffected at-risk individuals, if caught early, will result in improved patient outcomes, and further reduce the healthcare burden for the economy.

Cancer genetic counselling for hereditary breast cancer in the era of precision oncology

A relevant percentage of breast cancers (BCs) are tied to pathogenetic (P)/likely pathogenetic (LP) variants in predisposing genes. The knowledge of P/LP variants is an essential element in the management of BC patients since the first diagnosis because it influences surgery and subsequent oncological treatments and follow-up. Moreover, patients with metastatic BCs can benefit from personalized treatment if carriers of P/LP in BRCA1/2 genes. Multigene panels allow the identification of other predisposing genes with an impact on management. Cascade genetic testing for healthy family members allows personalized preventive strategies. Here, we review the advances and the challenges of Cancer Genetic Counseling (CGC). We focus on the area of oncology directed to hereditary BC management describing the peculiar way to lead CGC and how CGC changes over time. The authors describe the impact of genetic testing by targeted approach or universal approach on the management of BC according to the stage at diagnosis. Moreover, they describe the burden of CGC and testing and future perspectives to widely offer testing. A new perspective is needed for models of service delivery of CGC and testing, beyond formal genetic counselling. A broader genetic test can be quickly usable in clinical practice for comprehensive BC management and personalized prevention in the era of precision oncology.

Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: a review of barriers and breakthroughs

Germline genetic sequencing is now at the forefront of cancer treatment and preventative medicine. Cascade genetic testing, or the testing of at-risk relatives, is extremely promising as it offers genetic testing and potentially life-saving risk-reduction strategies to a population exponentially enriched for the risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. However, many relatives do not complete cascade testing due to barriers that span individual, relationship, healthcare community, and societal/policy domains. We have reviewed the published research on cascade testing. Our aim is to evaluate barriers to cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes and explore strategies to mitigate these barriers, with the goal of promoting increased uptake of cascade genetic testing.

Looking beyond year 1 in the molecular era of pediatric brain tumor diagnosis: confirmatory testing of germline variants found on tumor sequencing

Purpose

Somatic molecular profiling of pediatric brain tumors aids with the diagnosis and treatment of patients with a variety of high- and low-grade central nervous system neoplasms. Here, we report follow-up targeted germline evaluation for patients with possible germline variants following tumor only testing in the initial year in which somatic molecular testing was implemented at a single institution.

Patients and Methods

Somatic testing was completed for all tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) undergoing diagnostic workup at Seattle Children's Hospital during the study period of November 2015 to November 2016. Sequencing was performed in a College of American Pathologists-accredited, Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments-certified laboratory using UW-OncoPlex™ assay (version 5), a DNA-based targeted next generation sequencing panel validated to detect genetic alterations in 262 cancer-related genes. We tracked subsequent clinical evaluation and testing on a subgroup of this cohort found to have potential germline variants of interest.

Results

Molecular sequencing of 88 patients' tumors identified 31 patients with variants that warranted consideration of germline testing. To date, 19 (61%) patients have been tested. Testing confirmed germline variants for ten patients (31% of those identified for testing), one with two germline variants (NF1 and mosaic TP53). Eight (26%) patients died before germline testing was sent. One patient (13%) has not yet had testing.

Conclusion

Clinically validated molecular profiling of pediatric brain tumors identifies patients who warrant further germline evaluation. Despite this, only a subset of these patients underwent the indicated confirmatory sequencing. Further work is needed to identify barriers and facilitators to this testing, including the role of genetic counseling and consideration of upfront paired somatic-germline testing.

Family Recall of and Response to Germline Pathologic Variants Found on Paired Tumor-Germline Sequencing in Pediatric Oncology

PURPOSE

Paired tumor-germline sequencing can identify somatic variants for targeted therapy and germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) causative of hereditary cancer/tumor predisposition syndromes. It is unknown how patients/families in pediatric oncology use information about an identified GPV. We assessed recall of germline results and actions taken on the basis of findings.

METHODS

We completed phone surveys with patients (and/or their parent) with GPVs identified via a single academic medical center's paired tumor-germline sequencing study. Seven hundred forty pediatric (aged 0-25 years) oncology patients were enrolled in this sequencing study between May 2012 and August 2021. Ninety-six participants (13.0%) had at least one GPV identified and were therefore eligible for this survey. The parent/guardian (for patients younger than 18 years or deceased patients) or patients themselves (if 18 years or older) were contacted. Survey topics included germline result recall, experience with genetic counseling, changes to patient's cancer treatment/screening, sharing of results with family members, and lifestyle changes.

RESULTS

Fifty-three surveys (response rate, 55.2%) were completed between October 2021 and June 2022. Thirty-seven (69.8%) respondents correctly recalled the identified GPV. Discussing results with a genetic counselor (P = .0001), having a GPV related to the cancer/tumor diagnosis (P = .002), and non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity (P = .02) were associated with accurate recall. Twenty-five respondents (47.2%) reported a change in the child's cancer treatment and/or screening recommendations, 17 respondents (32.1%) made a lifestyle change on the basis of the results, and 44 respondents (83.0%) shared results with at least one family member.

CONCLUSION

While most respondents remembered that a GPV was identified in the patient, some did not recall having a GPV found, and others recalled germline findings incorrectly. Future work may determine patient/family preferences for timing/method of result return to optimize patient recall and use of germline results.

Province-Wide Ascertainment of Lynch Syndrome in Manitoba

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We describe the experience of Lynch syndrome (LS) diagnosis in the province of Manitoba, Canada, over the past 20 years.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of charts from the provincial Genetics Clinic from January 1, 2000, to May 31, 2023. We extracted data on individuals identified to carry a germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic LS gene variant, the mode of ascertainment, family history, and cascade genetic testing (CGT). Data were stratified and compared before and after the year of implementation (October 2013) of the provincial LS screening program (LSSP) and ascertainment by the LSSP vs clinic referrals (CRs).

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2021, 50 of 101 (49.5%) index cases were identified by the LSSP compared with 51 of 101 (50.5%) from CRs. The proportion of PMS2 variants was 34% (17 of 50) for LSSP index cases compared with 21.6% (11 of 51) for CRs from 2014 to 2021 (P < .001). Among CRs from 2014 to 2021, 24 of 51 (47.1%) families met the Amsterdam criteria, compared with 11 of 50 (22.0%) for the LSSP (P = .01). CGT occurred among 46.8% (95 of 203; average, 1.9 relatives/index) of first-degree relatives of CR index cases vs 36.5% (84 of 230; average, 1.7 relatives/index) of first-degree relatives of LSSP index cases (P = .03). Daughters were most likely to undergo CGT.

CONCLUSIONS

A tumor screening program is more effective at detecting individuals with lower penetrant gene variants and families who do not meet traditional family history-based criteria. Cascade genetic testing is higher among clinic referrals compared with the screening program. These findings suggest a complementary role of these 2 ascertainment methods for Lynch syndrome.

Do people with hereditary cancer syndromes inform their at-risk relatives? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate rates of familial disclosure of hereditary cancer syndrome information.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO no.: CRD42020134276). Key electronic databases were searched to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer syndrome cascade relative disclosure. Eligible studies were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Among 11,711 included relatives, 70% (95% CI 60 - 78%) were informed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant; of 2,875 relatives informed of their risk who were evaluated for uptake of cascade testing, 43% (95% CI 27 - 61%) completed testing. Rates of disclosure were higher among female vs male relatives (79% [95% CI 73% - 84%] vs 67% [95% CI 57% - 75%]) and first-degree vs second-degree relatives (83% [95% CI 77% - 88%] vs 58% [95% CI 45 - 69%]).

Conclusion

Nearly one-third of at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. Even among those informed, fewer than half subsequently complete genetic testing, representing a critical missed opportunity for precision cancer prevention.

Innovation

Five studies evaluating interventions to improve disclosure rates were generally ineffective. Urgent work is needed to elucidate barriers to relative disclosure by probands to develop targeted interventions that can optimize proband-mediated cascade genetic testing rates.

Applying the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions to increase family communication about hereditary cancer

Objective

Evaluate an intervention to increase family communication (FC) of positive hereditary cancer test results using the Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions (FDECI).

Methods

We developed 'programme theory' during the FDECI development phase by aligning intervention components with behavior change techniques (BCTs) and theoretical factors expected to improve FC. During the feasibility phase, we obtained feedback from 12 stakeholder interviews.

Results

Intervention components aligned with a total of 14 unique BCTs for which prior evidence links the BCT to theoretical factors that influence behavior change. Constructive stakeholder feedback included: more information desired, rewording to support autonomy by highlighting options, and improvements to navigation, visuals, and audio. Positive comments included: comprehensiveness of materials, modeling of conversations, and usefulness of the materials for helping a person prepare to share positive test results.

Conclusion

The first FDECI phases were helpful for improving the intervention and planning our ongoing effectiveness and future implementation phases.

Innovation

Our application of the FDECI is novel, including plans to test our 'programme theory' using coincidence analysis (CNA) to determine who accesses which intervention materials, how utilizing certain materials impact the aligned theoretical factors, and whether these in turn make a difference in the behavioral outcome.

Cascade Genetic Risk Education and Testing in Families With Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

Cascade genetic risk evaluation in families with hereditary cancer can reduce the burden of disease but the rate of germline genetic testing in relatives of patients at risk is low.

METHODS

We identified all 277 women diagnosed with breast cancer in Georgia in 2017 who linked to a clinically actionable germline pathogenic variant through a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry-variant linkage initiative. We surveyed them, and then invited eligible respondents to an online platform hosted by a navigator that offered cancer genetic risk education and germline genetic testing to untested relatives. We randomly assigned patient-family clusters at the time of the patient enrollment offer to free versus $50 (USD) test cost. Patients invited relatives to join the study through personalized e-mail. Enrolled relatives received online cancer genetic education and the opportunity to order clinical germline genetic testing through the platform. The primary outcome was the number of relatives who ordered genetic testing.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five of 277 patients completed surveys (45.2%). Most respondents were eligible for the trial offer (113 of 125; 90.4%). In the free testing arm, 20 of 56 eligible patients participated (35.7% of eligible respondents) and they invited 28 relatives: 12 relatives enrolled and 10 ordered testing. In the $50 (USD) arm, 16 of 57 eligible patients participated (28.1%) and they invited 38 relatives: 18 relatives enrolled and 17 ordered testing.

CONCLUSION

Cascade genetic testing in families with hereditary cancer syndromes accrued through a population-based cancer registry can be achieved through an online platform that offers genetic risk education and low-cost testing to relatives. A modest charge did not appear to influence the percentage of participating patients, numbers of participating relatives, and numbers of relatives who received genetic testing.

Diagnosis, treatment and disclosure: A qualitative exploration of participant challenges in a Monogenic Diabetes Registry

PURPOSE

Maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) represents a heterogenous group of monogenic diabetes. Despite its autosomal dominant inheritance, many MODY participants in the University of Chicago Monogenic Diabetes Registry have no family members enrolled. We aimed to gather data on the Registry participants' experiences in (1) receipt of an accurate diagnosis, (2) decisions regarding disclosure of their MODY genetic test results with biological relatives, and (3) recommendations toward our Registry's processes and outreach.

METHODS

We conducted 20 one-on-one semistructured interviews with adult Registry participants.

RESULTS

All participants found navigating the health care system challenging because of the providers' unfamiliarity with MODY and dismissal of its importance post diagnosis. All had shared their results with at least 1 relative, however many found their relatives resistant to engaging with their providers. Participants wanted to receive targeted information on their condition and connect with other participants who have faced similar diagnostic and treatment challenges.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that our probands faced resistance to reclassification of their diabetes from both health care providers and relatives. In an effort to improve cascade testing, the Registry is designing a portal to facilitate participant-research team communication and provide additional supports for participants to involve family members in testing.

A Focused Clinical Review of Lynch Syndrome

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant condition that increases an individual's risk of a constellation of cancers. LS is defined when an individual has inherited pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes. Currently, most people with LS are undiagnosed. Early detection of LS is vital as those with LS can be enrolled in cancer reduction strategies through chemoprophylaxis, risk reducing surgery and cancer surveillance. However, these interventions are often invasive and require refinement. Furthermore, not all LS associated cancers are currently amenable to surveillance. Historically only those with a strong family history suggestive of LS were offered testing; this has proved far too restrictive. New criteria for testing have recently been introduced including the universal screening for LS in associated cancers. This has increased the number of people being diagnosed with LS but has also brought about unique challenges such as when to consent for germline testing and questions over how and who should carry out the consent. The results of germline testing for LS can be complicated and the diagnostic pathway is not always clear. Furthermore, by testing only those with cancer for LS we fail to identify these individuals before they develop potentially fatal pathology. This review will outline these challenges and explore solutions. Furthermore, we consider the potential future of LS care and the related treatments and interventions which are the current focus of research.

Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, providing relatives the opportunity for early detection and prevention of cancer. The current standard is for patients to contact and encourage relatives (patient-mediated contact) to undergo counseling and testing. Direct relative contact by the medical team or testing laboratory has shown promise but is complicated by privacy laws and lack of infrastructure. We sought to compare outcomes associated with patient-mediated and direct relative contact for hereditary cancer cascade genetic counseling and testing in the first meta-analysis on this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42020134276). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer cascade testing. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Among relatives included in the meta-analysis, 48% (95% CI, 38 to 58) underwent cascade genetic counseling and 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) cascade genetic testing. Compared with the patient-mediated approach, direct relative contact resulted in significantly higher uptake of genetic counseling for all relatives (63% [95% CI, 49 to 75] v 35% [95% CI, 24 to 48]) and genetic testing for first-degree relatives (62% [95% CI, 49 to 73] v 40% [95% CI, 32 to 48]). Methods of direct contact included telephone calls, letters, and e-mails; respective rates of genetic testing completion were 61% (95% CI, 51 to 70), 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59), and 48% (95% CI, 45 to 50).

CONCLUSION

Most relatives at risk for hereditary cancer do not undergo cascade genetic counseling and testing, forgoing potentially life-saving medical interventions. Compared with patient-mediated contact, direct relative contact increased rates of cascade genetic counseling and testing, arguing for a shift in the care delivery paradigm, to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

Relatives from Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome Families Forgoing Genetic Testing: Findings from the Swiss CASCADE Cohort

Cascade genetic testing of relatives from families with pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) or Lynch syndrome (LS) has important implications for cancer prevention. We compared the characteristics of relatives from HBOC or LS families who did not have genetic testing (GT (−) group) with those who had genetic testing (GT (+) group), regardless of the outcome. Self-administered surveys collected cross-sectional data between September 2017 and December 2021 from relatives participating in the CASCADE cohort. We used multivariable logistic regression with LASSO variable selection. Among n = 115 relatives who completed the baseline survey, 38% (n = 44) were in the GT (−) group. Being male (OR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.10–7.10) and without a previous cancer diagnosis (OR: 4.47, 95% CI: 1.03–19.42) increased the odds of being untested by almost three times. Individuals from families with fewer tested relatives had 29% higher odds of being untested (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55–0.92). Reasons for forgoing cascade testing were: lack of provider recommendation, lack of time and interest in testing, being afraid of discrimination, and high out-of-pocket costs. Multilevel interventions designed to increase awareness about clinical implications of HBOC and LS in males, referrals from non-specialists, and support for testing multiple family members could improve the uptake of cascade testing.

Environmental scan of family chart linking for genetic cascade screening in a U.S. integrated health system

Background: An alternative to population-based genetic testing, automated cascade genetic testing facilitated by sharing of family health history, has been conceptualized as a more efficient and cost-effective approach to identify hereditary genetic conditions. However, existing software and applications programming interfaces (API) for the practical implementation of this approach in health care settings have not been described.

Methods: We reviewed API available for facilitating cascade genetic testing in electronic health records (EHRs). We emphasize any information regarding informed consent as provided for each tool. Using semi-structured key informant interviews, we investigated uptake of and barriers to integrating automated family cascade genetic testing into the EHR.

Results: We summarized the functionalities of six tools related to utilizing family health history to facilitate cascade genetic testing. No tools were explicitly capable of facilitating family cascade genetic testing, but few enterprise EHRs supported family health history linkage. We conducted five key informant interviews with four main considerations that emerged including: 1) incentives for interoperability, 2) HIPAA and regulations, 3) mobile-app and alternatives to EHR deployment, 4) fundamental changes to conceptualizing EHRs.

Discussion: Despite the capabilities of existing technology, limited bioinformatic support has been developed to automate processes needed for family cascade genetic testing and the main barriers for implementation are nontechnical, including an understanding of regulations, consent, and workflow. As the trade-off between cost and efficiency for population-based and family cascade genetic testing shifts, the additional tools necessary for their implementation should be considered.

How we approach genetics in the diagnosis and management of vascular anomalies

Vascular anomalies are a heterogeneous group of disorders that are currently classified based on their clinical and histological characteristics. Over the past decade, there have been significant advances in molecular genetics that have led to identification of genetic alterations associated with vascular tumors, vascular malformations, and syndromes. Here, we describe known genetic alterations in vascular anomalies, discuss when and how to test, and examine how identification of causative genetic mutations provides for better management of these disorders through improved understanding of their pathogenesis and increasing use of targeted therapeutic agents in order to achieve better outcomes for our patients.

Intention to Inform Relatives, Rates of Cascade Testing, and Preference for Patient-Mediated Communication in Families Concerned with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome: The Swiss CASCADE Cohort

Cascade screening for Tier 1 cancer genetic conditions is a significant public health intervention because it identifies untested relatives of individuals known to carry pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome (LS). The Swiss CASCADE is a family-based, open-ended cohort, including carriers of HBOC- and LS-associated pathogenic variants and their relatives. This paper describes rates of cascade screening in relatives from HBOC- and LS- harboring families, examines carriers' preferences for communication of testing results, and describes theory-based predictors of intention to invite relatives to a cascade screening program. Information has been provided by 304 index cases and 115 relatives recruited from September 2017 to December 2021. On average, 10 relatives per index case were potentially eligible for cascade screening. Approximately 65% of respondents wanted to invite relatives to the cohort, and approximately 50% indicated a preference for patient-mediated communication of testing results, possibly with the assistance of digital technology. Intention to invite relatives was higher for first- compared to second- and third-degree relatives, but was not different between syndromes or based on relatives' gender. The family environment and carrying pathogenic variants predicts intention to invite relatives. Information helps optimize delivery of tailored genetic services.

Germline Cancer Susceptibility Gene Testing in Unselected Patients With Colorectal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Prospective Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hereditary factors play a role in the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). Identification of germline predisposition can have implications on treatment and cancer prevention. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in CRC patients using a universal testing approach, association with clinical outcomes, and the uptake of family variant testing.

METHODS

We performed a prospective multisite study of germline sequencing using a more than 80-gene next-generation sequencing platform among CRC patients (not selected for age or family history) receiving care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020.

RESULTS

Of 361 patients, the median age was 57 years (SD, 12.4 y), 43.5% were female, 82% were white, and 38.2% had stage IV disease. PGVs were found in 15.5% (n = 56) of patients, including 44 in moderate- and high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes. Thirty-four (9.4%) patients had incremental clinically actionable findings that would not have been detected by practice guideline criteria or a CRC-specific gene panel. Only younger age at diagnosis was associated with the presence of PGVs (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.12-3.56). After a median follow-up period of 20.7 months, no differences in overall survival were seen between those with or without a PGV (P = .2). Eleven percent of patients had modifications in their treatment based on genetic findings. Family cascade testing was low (16%).

CONCLUSIONS

Universal multigene panel testing in CRC was associated with a modest, but significant, detection of heritable mutations over guideline-based testing. One in 10 patients had changes in their management based on test results. Uptake of cascade family testing was low, which is a concerning observation that warrants further study.

Should all patients undergoing genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer syndromes be offered a multigene panel?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We aim to demonstrate why multigene panel testing (MGPT) is the superior testing option for individuals undergoing hereditary cancer genetic testing. We will outline the clinical benefits and possible limitations of MGPT for individuals at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of MGPT increases the identification of individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes. Recent studies continue to prove that MGPT is a superior option to single gene/or syndrome testing. MGPT is a cost-effective testing approach for those meeting criteria for genetic testing. Individuals interested in MGPT should understand the benefits and limitations of this approach, including an increase in variant identification and possible incidental findings. MGPT also increases the number of individuals who would benefit from cascade testing.

SUMMARY

MGPT should be considered as the standard approach to hereditary cancer genetic testing as opposed to single gene or single syndrome testing. MGPT identifies a larger proportion of individuals with a hereditary cancer syndrome and leads to better management and improved uptake of cascade testing.

Germline Cancer Susceptibility Gene Testing in Unselected Patients with Hepatobiliary Cancers: A Multi-Center Prospective Study

Data from germline testing in unselected patients with hepatobiliary cancers are limited. Identification of germline predisposition can have important implications on cancer treatment and family counseling. To determine prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in patients with hepatobiliary cancer, we undertook a prospective multi-site study of germline sequencing using a >80-gene next-generation sequencing platform among patients with hepatobiliary cancers receiving care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2020. Patients were not selected on the basis of stage, family cancer history, ethnicity, or age. Family cascade testing was offered at no cost. Of 205 patients, the median age was 65 years, 58.5% were male, 81% were White, and 64.4% had cholangiocarcinoma, 21.5% hepatocellular carcinoma, 7.8% gallbladder cancer, and 4.3% carcinoma of ampulla of Vater. PGV were found in 15.6% (n = 32) of patients, including 23 (71%) in moderate and high penetrance cancer susceptibility genes. A total of 75% of patients with a positive result would not have been detected using guidelines for genetic evaluation. Prevalence of PGV was 15.7% in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 17% in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 15.9% in hepatocellular cancer, and 33% in carcinoma of ampulla of Vater. On the basis of these genetic findings, 55% were potentially eligible for approved precision therapy and/or clinical treatment trials. Universal multi-gene panel testing in hepatobiliary cancers was associated with detection of heritable mutations in over 15% of patients most of whom would not have been tested using current guidelines. Germline testing should be considered in all patients with hepatobiliary cancers. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Universal multi-gene testing in hepatobiliary cancers was associated with heritable mutations in over 15% of patients, most of whom would not have been tested using current guidelines. 55% were potentially eligible for approved precision therapy and/or clinical treatment trials. Germline testing should be considered in all patients with hepatobiliary cancers.

IMProving care After inherited Cancer Testing (IMPACT) study: protocol of a randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of two interventions designed to improve cancer risk management and family communication of genetic test results

BACKGROUND

Implementing genetic testing for inherited cancer predisposition into routine clinical care offers a tremendous opportunity for cancer prevention and early detection. However, genetic testing itself does not improve outcomes; rather, outcomes depend on implemented follow-up care. The IMPACT study is a hybrid type I randomized effectiveness-implementation trial to simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of two interventions for individuals with inherited cancer predisposition focused on: 1) increasing family communication (FC) of genetic test results; and 2) improving engagement with guideline-based cancer risk management (CRM).

METHODS

This prospective study will recruit a racially, geographically, and socioeconomically diverse population of individuals with a documented pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in an inherited cancer gene. Eligible participants will be asked to complete an initial trial survey and randomly assigned to one of three arms: A) GeneSHARE, a website designed to increase FC of genetic test results; B) My Gene Counsel's Living Lab Report, a digital tool designed to improve understanding of genetic test results and next steps, including CRM guidelines; or C) a control arm in which participants continue receiving standard care. Follow-up surveys will be conducted at 1, 3, and 12 months following randomization. These surveys include single-item measures, scales, and indices related to: 1) FC and CRM behaviors and behavioral factors following the COM-B theoretical framework (i.e., capability, opportunity, and motivation); 2) implementation outcomes (i.e., acceptability, appropriateness, exposure, and reach); and 3) other contextual factors (i.e., sociodemographic and clinical factors, and uncertainty, distress, and positive aspects of genetic test results). The primary outcomes are an increase in FC of genetic test results (Arm A) and improved engagement with guideline-based CRM without overtreatment or undertreatment (Arm B) by the 12-month follow-up survey.

DISCUSSION

Our interventions are designed to shift the paradigm by which individuals with P/LP variants in inherited cancer genes are provided with information to enhance FC of genetic test results and engagement with guideline-based CRM. The information gathered through evaluating the effectiveness and implementation of these real-world approaches is needed to modify and scale up adaptive, stepped interventions that have the potential to maximize FC and CRM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04763915, date registered: February 21, 2021).

PROTOCOL VERSION

September 17th, 2021 Amendment Number 04.

Endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant inherited disease caused by germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in mismatch repair (MMR) genes. LS-associated endometrial cancer (LS-EC) is the most common extraintestinal sentinel cancer caused by germline PVs in MMR genes, including MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2. The clinicopathologic features of LS-EC include early age of onset, lower body mass index (BMI), endometrioid carcinoma and lower uterine segment involvement. There has been significant progress in screening, diagnosis, surveillance, prevention and treatment of LS-EC. Many studies support universal screening for LS among patients with EC. Screening mainly involves a combination of traditional clinical criteria and molecular techniques, including MMR-immunohistochemistry (MMR-IHC), microsatellite instability (MSI) testing, MLH1 promoter methylation testing and gene sequencing. The effectiveness of endometrial biopsy and transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) for clinical monitoring of asymptomatic women with LS are uncertain yet. Preventive strategies include hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) as well as chemoprophylaxis using exogenous progestin or aspirin. Recent research has revealed the benefits of immunotherapy for LS-EC. The NCCN guidelines recommend pembrolizumab and nivolumab for treating patients with advanced or recurrent microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) EC.

Recommendation and Acceptance of Counselling for Familial Cancer Risk in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Cases

<b><i>Background:</i></b> In clinical routine, not every patient who is offered genetic counselling and diagnostics in order to investigate a familial cancer risk predisposition opts for it. Little is known about acceptance of counselling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in Germany. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> All primary breast cancer cases and patients with DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) treated at the University Hospital of Dresden between 2016 and 2019 were included. The number of tumor board recommendations for genetic counselling on the basis of the GC-HBOC risk criteria was recorded. Acceptance was analyzed by number of cases with counselling in the GC-HBOC-Center Dresden. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of 996 primary breast cancer and DCIS cases, 262 (26.3%) were eligible for genetic counselling. Recommendation for genetic counselling was accepted by 64.1% (168/262). Of these 90.5% (152/168) opted for molecular genetic analysis. The acceptance rate for counselling increased between 2016 and 2019 from 58.3 to 72.6%. Altogether, 20.4% (31/152) patients were found to carry a pathogenic variant in the breast cancer genes <i>BRCA1</i> or <i>BRCA2</i>. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Acceptance of recommendation is increasing as clinical consequences augment. Optimization in providing information about hereditary cancer risk and in accessibility of counselling and testing is required to further improve acceptance of recommendation.

Interventions Facilitating Family Communication of Genetic Testing Results and Cascade Screening in Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancer or Lynch Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic testing of blood relatives of known Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) or Lynch Syndrome (LS) cases, to inform individualized cancer screening and prevention plans. The study identified interventions designed to facilitate family communication of genetic testing results and/or cancer predisposition cascade genetic testing for HBOC and LS. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that assessed intervention efficacy for these two outcomes. Additional outcomes were also recorded and synthesized when possible. Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis and 13 in the meta-analysis. Lack of participant blinding was the most common risk of bias. Interventions targeted HBOC (n = 5); both HBOC and LS (n = 4); LS (n = 3); or ovarian cancer (n = 2). All protocols (n = 14) included a psychoeducational and/or counseling component. Additional components were decision aids (n = 4), building communication skills (n = 4), or motivational interviewing (n = 1). The overall effect size for family communication was small (g = 0.085) and not significant (p = 0.344), while for cascade testing, it was small (g = 0.169) but significant (p = 0.014). Interventions show promise for improving cancer predisposition cascade genetic testing for HBOC and LS. Future studies should employ family-based approaches and include racially diverse samples.

Comparison of Universal Genetic Testing vs Guideline-Directed Targeted Testing for Patients With Hereditary Cancer Syndrome

IMPORTANCE

Hereditary factors play a key role in the risk of developing several cancers. Identification of a germline predisposition can have important implications for treatment decisions, risk-reducing interventions, cancer screening, and germline testing.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in patients with cancer using a universal testing approach compared with targeted testing based on clinical guidelines and the uptake of cascade family variant testing (FVT).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective, multicenter cohort study assessed germline genetic alterations among patients with solid tumor cancer receiving care at Mayo Clinic cancer centers and a community practice between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020. Patients were not selected based on cancer type, disease stage, family history of cancer, ethnicity, or age.

EXPOSURES

Germline sequencing using a greater than 80-gene next-generation sequencing platform.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Proportion of PGVs detected with a universal strategy compared with a guideline-directed approach and uptake of cascade FVT in families.

RESULTS

A total of 2984 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [12.2] years; 1582 [53.0%] male) were studied. Pathogenic germline variants were found in 397 patients (13.3%), including 282 moderate- and high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes. Variants of uncertain significance were found in 1415 patients (47.4%). A total of 192 patients (6.4%) had incremental clinically actionable findings that would not have been detected by phenotype or family history-based testing criteria. Of those with a high-penetrance PGV, 42 patients (28.2%) had modifications in their treatment based on the finding. Only younger age of diagnosis was associated with presence of PGV. Only 70 patients (17.6%) with PGVs had family members undergoing no-cost cascade FVT.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This prospective, multicenter cohort study found that universal multigene panel testing among patients with solid tumor cancer was associated with an increased detection of heritable variants over the predicted yield of targeted testing based on guidelines. Nearly 30% of patients with high-penetrance variants had modifications in their treatment. Uptake of cascade FVT was low despite being offered at no cost.

Updates and New Options in Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Treatment

The medical and surgical treatment strategies for women with epithelial ovarian cancer continue to evolve. In the past several years, there has been significant progress backed by landmark clinical trials. Although primary epithelial ovarian cancer is still treated with a combination of surgery and systemic therapy, more complex surgical procedures and novel therapeutics have emerged as standard of care. Cytotoxic chemotherapy and maximal surgical effort remain mainstays, but targeted therapies are becoming more widespread and new data have called into question the role of surgery for women with recurrent disease. Poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors have improved progression-free survival outcomes in both the frontline and recurrent settings, and their use has become increasingly widespread. The recent creation of treatment categories based on genetic changes reinforces the recommendation that all women with epithelial ovarian cancer have germline genetic testing, and new biomarker-driven drug approvals indicate that women may benefit from somatic molecular testing as well. To continue to identify novel strategies, however, enrollment on clinical trials remains of the utmost importance. With the evolving data on surgical approaches, targeted therapies such as antiangiogenics and poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors, and the new therapeutic agents and combinations in development, we hope that advanced epithelial ovarian cancer will eventually transition from an almost universally fatal disease to one that can increasingly be cured.

Family communication of genetic test results among women with inherited breast cancer genes

Identification of inherited breast cancer may guide care. These benefits can be amplified through communication of genetic test results with at-risk family members and subsequent family testing (FT). Females with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in BRCA1/2, PALB2, CHEK2, and/or ATM were surveyed about family communication (FC) of genetic test results and FT. Comparisons were made across genes. The 235 participants with P/LP variants (186 BRCA1/2, 28 PALB2, 15 CHEK2, and 6 ATM) had a median age of 54 and most were non-Hispanic whites (89%) with a prior breast cancer diagnosis (61%). When controlling for other variables, FC was higher among younger participants (p<.0001), those with high FC self-efficacy (p=.019), and those with P/LP variants in BRCA1/2 compared to PALB2 (p =.040) and ATM/CHEK2 (p =.032). Higher rates of FC and FT were also observed among female relatives and relatives of closer kinship. Overall 94% of participants would find one or more resources helpful with FC and 70% reported using FC resources when telling family members about their genetic test result. The three most commonly used resources included the following: (a) a family sharing letter (38%); (b) printed materials (30%); and (c) web-based information (23%). Among the 86% who spoke with a genetic counselor (GC), 93% were given at least one FC resource and the three most common resources GCs provided to participants overlapped with the resources participants would find helpful and those that were used. Our results suggest lower FC and FT rates among women with P/LP variants in genes other than BRCA1/2, the reasons for which should be evaluated in future studies. As more data to refine cancer risks and management are generated across these other inherited breast cancer genes, strategies to improve FC and FT are needed to amplify the benefits of genetic testing.