Mainstream genetic testing for breast cancer patients: early experiences from the Parkville Familial Cancer Centre

Reduced Breast and Ovarian Cancer Through Targeted Genetic Testing: Estimates Using the NEEMO Microsimulation Model

Background: The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer largely rely on the identification and clinical management of individuals with a pathogenic variant prior to developing cancer. Simulation modelling is commonly utilised to evaluate genetic testing strategies due to its ability to synthesise collections of data and extrapolate over long time periods and large populations. Existing genetic testing simulation models use simplifying assumptions for predictive genetic testing and risk management uptake, which could impact the reliability of their estimates. Our objective was to develop a microsimulation model that accurately reflects current genetic testing and subsequent care in Australia, directly incorporating the dynamic nature of predictive genetic testing within families and adherence to cancer risk management recommendations. Methods: The populatioN gEnEtic testing MOdel (NEEMO) is a population-level microsimulation that incorporates a detailed simulation of individuals linked within five-generation family units. The genetic component includes heritable high- and moderate-risk monogenic gene variants, as well as polygenic risk. Interventions include clinical genetic services, breast screening, and risk-reducing surgery. Model validation is described, and then to illustrate a practical application, NEEMO was used to compare clinical outcomes for four genetic testing scenarios in patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) and their relatives: (1) no genetic testing, (2) current practice, (3) optimised referral for genetic testing, and (4) genetic testing for all BC. Results: NEEMO accurately estimated genetic testing utilisation according to current practice and associated cancer incidence, pathology, and survival. Predictive testing uptake in first- and second-degree relatives was consistent with known prospective genetic testing data. Optimised genetic referral and expanded testing prevented up to 9.3% of BC and 4.1% of ovarian cancers in relatives of patients with BC. Expanding genetic testing eligibility to all BC patients did not lead to improvement in life-years saved in at-risk relatives compared to optimised referral of patients eligible for testing under current criteria. Conclusions: NEEMO is an adaptable and validated microsimulation model for evaluating genetic testing strategies. It captures the real-world uptake of clinical and predictive genetic testing and recommended cancer risk management, which are important considerations when considering real-world clinical and cost-effectiveness.

BRCA-mutated breast cancer: the unmet need, challenges and therapeutic benefits of genetic testing

Mutations in the BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 genes (BRCAm) increase the risk of developing breast cancer (BC) and are found in ~5% of unselected patients with the disease. BC resulting from a germline BRCAm (gBRCAm) has distinct clinical characteristics along with increased sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapies, and potentially decreased sensitivity to cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors. Given the evolving treatment landscape for gBRCAm BC in early and advanced disease settings, timely determination of gBRCAm status is fundamental to facilitate the most effective treatment strategy for patients. However, many patients with gBRCAm are not identified due to suboptimal referral rates and/or a low uptake of genetic testing. We discuss current evidence for a differential response to treatment in patients with gBRCAm in early and advanced BC settings, including outcomes with PARP inhibitors, platinum-based chemotherapies, and CDK4/6 inhibitors, as well as ongoing treatment innovations and the potential of these treatment approaches. Current genetic testing strategies are also examined, including the latest guidelines on who and when to test for gBRCAm, as well as challenges to testing and how these may be overcome.

Commentary: Why is genetic testing underutilized worldwide? The case for hereditary breast cancer

It is thirty years since the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were discovered and genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 was introduced. Despite increasing awareness of the genetic basis of cancer and our evolving knowledge of effective means of prevention, screening, and treatment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers, genetic testing is underutilized, and most mutation carriers remain unidentified. In this commentary, we explore possible reasons for why this might be so. Our focus is on factors that may influence or deter a patient from pursuing testing, rather than discussing the implications of receiving a positive test result. Issues of concern include an inadequate number of genetic counselors, restrictive (and conflicting) eligibility criteria for testing, the cost of the test, health insurance coverage, fear of future insurance discrimination, privacy issues, lack of familiarity with the testing process in primary care and gaps in both patient and provider knowledge about the impact and the value of testing. We discuss how these factors may lead to the underutilization of genetic testing in North America and throughout the world and discuss alternative models of genetic healthcare delivery. We have invited leaders in cancer genetic from around the world to tell us what they think are the barriers to testing in their host countries.

BRCA genetic testing and counseling in breast cancer: how do we meet our patients' needs?

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are tumor suppressor genes that have been linked to inherited susceptibility of breast cancer. Germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (gBRCAm) are clinically relevant for treatment selection in breast cancer because they confer sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. BRCA1/2 mutation status may also impact decisions on other systemic therapies, risk-reducing measures, and choice of surgery. Consequently, demand for gBRCAm testing has increased. Several barriers to genetic testing exist, including limited access to testing facilities, trained counselors, and psychosocial support, as well as the financial burden of testing. Here, we describe current implications of gBRCAm testing for patients with breast cancer, summarize current approaches to gBRCAm testing, provide potential solutions to support wider adoption of mainstreaming testing practices, and consider future directions of testing.

Universal Genetic Testing for Newly Diagnosed Invasive Breast Cancer

Importance

Between 5% and 10% of breast cancer cases are associated with an inherited germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant (GPV) in a breast cancer susceptibility gene (BCSG), which could alter local and systemic therapy recommendations. Traditional genetic testing criteria misses a proportion of these cases.

Objective

To evaluate the prevalence and clinicopathological associations of GPVs in 2 groups of BCSGs among an ethnically diverse cohort of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study, conducted at 3 Montreal hospitals between September 2019 and April 2022, offered universal genetic counseling and testing to all women with a first diagnosis of invasive breast cancer. Women were offered an obligatory primary panel of BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 (B1B2P2) and an optional secondary panel of 14 additional BCSGs. Eligible participants were women 18 years of age or older who received a diagnosis of a first primary invasive breast cancer not more than 6 months before the time of referral to the study. Data were analyzed from November 2023 to June 2024.

Results

Of 1017 referred patients, 805 were eligible and offered genetic counseling and testing, and 729 of those 805 (90.6%) consented to be tested. The median age at breast cancer diagnosis was 53 years (range, 23-91 years), and 65.4% were White and of European ancestry. Fifty-four GPVs were identified in 53 patients (7.3%), including 39 patients (5.3%) with B1B2P2 and 15 patients (2.1%) with 6 of the 14 secondary panel BCSGs (ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2, RAD51D, and STK11). On multivariable analysis, clinical factors independently associated with B1B2P2-positive status included being younger than 40 years of age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 6.83; 95% CI, 2.22-20.90), triple-negative breast cancer (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.20-8.43), high grade disease (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.05-2.70), and family history of ovarian cancer (OR, 9.75; 95% CI, 2.65-35.85). Of 39 B1B2P2-positive patients, 13 (33.3%) were eligible for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional universal genetic testing study of women with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer, the prevalence of GPVs was 7.3%, with 5.3% of patients testing positive for B1B2P2. Among B1B2P2-women women, one-third were eligible for PARP inhibitors.

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.

Mapping inter-professional collaboration in oncogenetics: Results from a scoping review

Inter-professional collaboration could improve timely access and quality of oncogenetic services. Here, we present the results of a scoping review conducted to systematically identify collaborative models available, unpack the nature and extent of collaboration proposed, synthesize evidence on their implementation and evaluation, and identify areas where additional research is needed. A comprehensive search was conducted in four journal indexing databases on June 13th, 2022, and complemented with searches of the grey literature and citations. Screening was conducted by two independent reviewers. Eligible documents included those describing either the theory of change, planning, implementation and/or evaluation of collaborative oncogenetic models. 165 publications were identified, describing 136 unique interventions/studies on oncogenetic models with somewhat overlapping collaborative features. Collaboration appears to be mostly inter-professional in nature, often taking place during risk assessment and pre-testing genetic counseling. Yet, most publications provide very limited information on their collaborative features, and only a few studies have set out to formally evaluate them. Better quality research is needed to comprehensively examine and make conclusions regarding the value of collaboration in this oncogenetics. We propose a definition, logic model, and typology of collaborative oncogenetic models to strengthen future planning, implementation, and evaluation in this field.

Mainstreaming in parallel with ovarian cancer tumor testing to improve genetic testing uptake

OBJECTIVES

Although genetic testing (GT) is universally recommended for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), rates are low (34%). In 1/2019, we implemented mainstreaming-GT in parallel with tumor testing via MSK-IMPACT within oncology clinics. We sought to determine GT rates pre/post-mainstreaming and patient characteristics associated with GT.

METHODS

Patients with newly diagnosed EOC seen at our institution from 7/1/2015-3/31/2022 were included. Clinical data were abstracted including social determinants of health (SDOH) variables, race/ethnicity, marital status, insurance, language, comorbidities, employment, and Yost index, a measure of socioeconomic status. GT rates were calculated overall and pre-/post-mainstreaming (1/2019). Logistic regression models were fit to identify variables associated with GT.

RESULTS

Of 1742 patients with EOC, 1591 (91%) underwent GT. Rates of GT increased from 87% to 95% after mainstreaming (p < 0.001). Among 151 patients not undergoing GT, major reasons were lack of provider recommendation (n = 76, 50%) and logistical issues (n = 38, 25%) with few declining (n = 14, 9%) or having medical complications preventing GT (n = 7, 4.6%). High-grade serous histology, advanced stage (III/IV), and having a spouse/partner were associated with increased GT uptake (p < 0.01). Among SDOH variables, there were no differences by insurance, Yost score, language, comorbidities, employment, or race/ethnicity. In multivariable models, likelihood of GT increased with mainstreaming, even after adjustment for histology, stage, and marital status (OR 3.77; 95% CI: 2.56-5.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Mainstreaming increased the likelihood of GT in patients with EOC. We found lower testing rates in patients without partners/spouses, non-high-grade serous histology, and early-stage disease, representing potential areas for future interventions.

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.

Talking about Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk-Evaluation of a Psychosocial Training Module for Gynecologists in Germany

Primary care gynecologists are increasingly integrated into the care of patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) risks. These physicians should not only have basic genetic knowledge; they should also feel able to sensitively address an increased HBOC risk and deal with emotional, stressful situations in this context. Our project aimed at developing a training module, 'iKNOWgynetics', addressing psychosocial challenges in the context of HBOC care for primary care gynecologists. We developed the psychosocial training module in three phases: first, we conducted an online survey with n = 35 women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer to assess patients' experiences and needs. Second, based on the results of the needs assessment, we developed the training module. Third, we evaluated the training by assessing physicians' (n = 109) self-efficacy with regard to communication skills in the context of HBOC before and after the training. In the needs assessment, seven psychosocial themes emerged. These themes, complementing a review of the literature, informed the training curriculum. The training was divided into two parts: (1) communicating with women before genetic testing and (2) care co-management for women with HBOC after genetic testing. After the training, participants reported a significant increase in self-efficacy in three domains: communicating empathetically, educating patients in a comprehensible way and dealing with emotionally challenging situations. Our results highlight the relevance of psychosocial issues for patients with HBOC. A genetic literacy training module that integrates aspects of psychosocial care increases physicians' confidence in dealing with emotionally challenging situations before and after their patients' genetic testing. Thus, such trainings may improve the care of women with hereditary cancer risks.

Universal Germline-Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer: Implementation in a Rural Practice and Impact on Shared Decision-Making

BACKGROUND

Whereas the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria restrict germline-genetic testing (GGT) to a subset of breast cancer (BC) patients, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends universal GGT. Although the yield of pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in unselected BC patients has been studied, the practicality and utility of incorporating universal GGT into routine cancer care in community and rural settings is understudied. This study reports real-world implementation of universal GGT for patients with breast cancer and genetics-informed, treatment decision-making in a rural, community practice with limited resources.

METHODS

From 2019 to 2022, all patients with breast cancer at a small, rural hospital were offered GGT, using a genetics-extender model. Statistical analyses included Fisher's exact test, t-tests, and calculation of odds ratios. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of 210 patients with breast cancer who were offered GGT, 192 (91.4%) underwent testing with 104 (54.2%) in-criteria (IC) and 88 (45.8%) out-of-criteria (OOC) with NCCN guidelines. Pathogenic germline variants were identified in 25 patients (13.0%), with PGV frequencies of 15 of 104 (14.4%) in IC and ten of 88 (11.4%) in OOC patients (p = 0.495). GGT informed treatment for 129 of 185 (69.7%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal GGT was successfully implemented in a rural, community practice with > 90% uptake. Treatment was enhanced or de-escalated in those with and without clinically actionable PGVs, respectively. Universal GGT for patients with breast cancer is feasible within rural populations, enabling optimization of clinical care to patients' genetic profile, and may reduce unnecessary healthcare, resource utilization.

Personalising genetic counselling (POETIC) trial: Protocol for a hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation randomised clinical trial of a patient screening tool to improve patient empowerment after cancer genetic counselling

BACKGROUND

Genetic counselling aims to identify, and address, patient needs while facilitating informed decision-making about genetic testing and promoting empowerment and adaptation to genetic information. Increasing demand for cancer genetic testing and genetic counsellor workforce capacity limitations may impact the quality of genetic counselling provided. The use of a validated genetic-specific screening tool, the Genetic Psychosocial Risk Instrument (GPRI), may facilitate patient-centred genetic counselling. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness and implementation of using the GPRI in improving patient outcomes after genetic counselling and testing for an inherited cancer predisposition.

METHODS

The PersOnalising gEneTIc Counselling (POETIC) trial is a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial using a randomised control trial to assess the effectiveness of the GPRI in improving patient empowerment (primary outcome), while also assessing implementation from the perspective of clinicians and the healthcare service. Patients referred for a cancer risk assessment to the conjoint clinical genetics service of two metropolitan hospitals in Victoria, Australia, who meet the eligibility criteria and consent to POETIC will be randomised to the usual care or intervention group. Those in the intervention group will complete the GPRI prior to their appointment with the screening results available for the clinicians' use during the appointment. Appointment audio recordings, clinician-reported information about the appointment, patient-reported outcome measures, and clinical data will be used to examine the effectiveness of using the GPRI. Appointment audio recordings, health economic information, and structured interviews will be used to examine the implementation of the GPRI.

DISCUSSION

The POETIC trial takes a pragmatic approach by deploying the GPRI as an intervention in the routine clinical practice of a cancer-specific clinical genetics service that is staffed by a multidisciplinary team of genetics and oncology clinicians. Therefore, the effectiveness and implementation evidence generated from this real-world health service setting aims to optimise the relevance of the outcomes of this trial to the practice of genetic counselling while enhancing the operationalisation of the screening tool in routine practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry registration number 12621001582842p. Date of registration: 19th November 2021.

Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients: experience from a single surgeon's practice in a large US Academic Center

This study evaluated the impact of mainstreamed genetic testing (MGT) on the timing and uptake of testing in an academic breast surgeon's practice. Before September 2019 (pre-MGT phase), a breast surgery practice at Massachusetts General Hospital followed a traditional model of a pre-test consultation with a genetic counselor (GC) following a referral. After September 2019 (post-MGT phase), the same practice offered patients genetic testing in a single clinical encounter with a breast surgeon. We evaluated the waiting time between referral and GC visit in the pre-MGT phase and compared the uptake and positivity rates between both phases. In the pre-MGT phase (204 patients), the median waiting time for GC visit was seven days for patients with a newly diagnosed cancer, 211 days for patients with a personal history of cancer, and 224 days for non-cancer patients who had a family history. A total of 105 (51.5%) patients completed a GC appointment. In the post-MGT phase (202 patients), a significantly higher proportion of patients (88.1%, p < 0.001) consented to genetic testing, while the proportion of patients who tested positive was lower (pathogenic variant: 11.9% vs. 20.0%; variant of uncertain significance: 19.9% vs. 28.0%; p = 0.047). Implementing MGT can reduce the number of clinical visits, significantly shorten patients' wait time to test initiation, and increase the completion of genetic testing. Successful integration of this model relied on the genetic expertise of the breast surgeon involved and the support of the GC team.

Evaluation and pilot testing of a multidisciplinary model of care to mainstream genomic testing for paediatric inborn errors of immunity

Molecular diagnosis of paediatric inborn errors of immunity (IEI) influences management decisions and alters clinical outcomes, through early use of targeted and curative therapies. The increasing demand for genetic services has resulted in growing waitlists and delayed access to vital genomic testing. To address this issue, the Queensland Paediatric Immunology and Allergy Service, Australia, developed and evaluated a mainstreaming model of care to support point-of-care genomic testing for paediatric IEI. Key features of the model of care included a genetic counsellor embedded in the department, state-wide multidisciplinary team meetings, and variant prioritisation meetings to review whole exome sequencing (WES) data. Of the 62 children presented at the MDT, 43 proceeded to WES, of which nine (21%) received a confirmed molecular diagnosis. Changes to treatment and management were reported for all children with a positive result, including curative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (n = 4). Four children were also referred for further investigations of variants of uncertain significance or additional testing due to ongoing suspicion of genetic cause after negative result. Demonstrating engagement with the model of care, 45% of the patients were from regional areas and on average, 14 healthcare providers attended the state-wide multidisciplinary team meetings. Parents demonstrated understanding of the implications of testing, reported minimal decisional regret post-test, and identified benefits to genomic testing. Overall, our program demonstrated the feasibility of a mainstreaming model of care for paediatric IEI, improved access to genomic testing, facilitated treatment decision-making, and was acceptable to parents and clinicians alike.

Germline Pathogenic Variants and Genetic Counseling by Ancestry in Patients With Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate rates of germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PVs) and genetic counseling by ancestry in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

METHODS

Patients with pathologically confirmed EOC who underwent clinical tumor-normal sequencing from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020, inclusive of germline analysis of ≥76 genes were included. Patients with newly identified PVs were referred for Clinical Genetics Service (CGS) counseling. Ancestry groups were defined using self-reported race/ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) heritage. Genetic ancestry was inferred computationally using validated algorithms. Logistic regression models were built.

RESULTS

Of 1,266 patients, self-reported ancestry (AJ, 17%; Asian, 10%; Black/African American, 5.4%; Hispanic, 6.2%; non-Hispanic White, 57%; other, 0.16%; unknown, 4.0%) correlated with genetic ancestry (AJ ancestry, 18%; admixed, 10%; African, 4%; East Asian [EAS], 6%; European, 56%; Native American, 0.2%; South Asian [SAS], 4%; unknown, 2%). Germline PVs were observed in 313 (25%) patients, including 195 (15%) with PVs in EOC-associated genes. Those with PVs were younger at diagnosis (59 v 62 years; P < .001) and more likely to have high-grade serous ovarian cancer (83% v 72%; P = .009). PV prevalence varied between ancestry groups (P < .001), with highest rates in the AJ (39.9%) and Asian (26.5%) groups and similar rates (>10%) across other ancestry groups. Use of genetic ancestry demonstrated similar findings and further characterized high rates of PV in EAS/SAS groups. Younger age, high-grade serous histology, and self-reported AJ or Asian ancestry were associated with PV in an EOC-associated gene. Rates of CGS counseling for newly identified PVs were high (80%) across ancestry groups.

CONCLUSION

Rates of PV, particularly in EOC-associated genes, were high regardless of ancestry, with similar rates of counseling between groups, emphasizing the importance of universal genetic testing in all patients with EOC.

Universal genetic testing for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer in the context of multidisciplinary team care

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of universal genetic testing of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, to estimate the incidence of pathogenic gene variants and their impact on patient management, and to evaluate patient and clinician acceptance of universal testing.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

Prospective study of women with invasive or high grade in situ breast cancer and unknown germline status discussed at the Parkville Breast Service (Melbourne) multidisciplinary team meeting. Women were recruited to the pilot (12 June 2020 - 22 March 2021) and expansion phases (17 October 2021 - 8 November 2022) of the Mutational Assessment of newly diagnosed breast cancer using Germline and tumour genomICs (MAGIC) study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Germline testing by DNA sequencing, filtered for nineteen hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genes that could be classified as actionable; only pathogenic variants were reported. Surveys before and after genetic testing assessed pilot phase participants' perceptions of genetic testing, and psychological distress and cancer-specific worry. A separate survey assessed clinicians' views on universal testing.

RESULTS

Pathogenic germline variants were identified in 31 of 474 expanded study phase participants (6.5%), including 28 of 429 women with invasive breast cancer (6.5%). Eighteen of the 31 did not meet current genetic testing eligibility guidelines (probability of a germline pathogenic variant ≥ 10%, based on CanRisk, or Manchester score ≥ 15). Clinical management was changed for 24 of 31 women after identification of a pathogenic variant. Including 68 further women who underwent genetic testing outside the study, 44 of 542 women carried pathogenic variants (8.1%). Acceptance of universal testing was high among both patients (90 of 103, 87%) and clinicians; no decision regret or adverse impact on psychological distress or cancer-specific worry were reported.

CONCLUSION

Universal genetic testing following the diagnosis of breast cancer detects clinically significant germline pathogenic variants that might otherwise be missed because of testing guidelines. Routine testing and reporting of pathogenic variants is feasible and acceptable for both patients and clinicians.

Patients’ experiences with pre-test genetic counseling provided by breast cancer healthcare professionals: Results from a large prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Pre-test genetic counseling of patients with breast cancer is increasingly being offered by non-genetic healthcare professionals. We aimed to evaluate the experiences of patients with breast cancer receiving pre-test genetic counseling from a non-genetic healthcare professional (i.e., surgeon or nurse).

METHODS

Patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer and received pre-test counseling from their surgeon or nurse (mainstream group), and patients who received pre-test counseling from a clinical geneticist (usual care group) were invited to participate in our multicenter study. Between September 2019 and December 2021, patients received a questionnaire after pre-test counseling (T0) and four weeks after receiving their test results (T1) to evaluate psychosocial outcomes, knowledge, discussed topics and satisfaction.

RESULTS

We included 191 patients in our mainstream and 183 patients in our usual care group and received, respectively 159 and 145 follow-up questionnaires. Levels of distress and decisional regret were comparable in both groups. Decisional conflict was higher in our mainstream group (p = 0.01), but only 7% had clinically relevant decisional conflict (vs 2% in usual care group). The possible implications of a genetic test on (secondary) breast or ovarian cancer risks were less frequently discussed in our mainstream group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.000, respectively). In both groups knowledge about genetics was comparable, satisfaction was high and the majority of patients in both groups preferred to give both verbal and written consent for genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Mainstreamed genetic care provides sufficient information for the majority of breast cancer patients to decide about genetic testing with minimal distress.

Surgical Oncologists and Nurses in Breast Cancer Care are Ready to Provide Pre-Test Genetic Counseling

BACKGROUND

Pre-test genetic counseling for patients with breast cancer is increasingly being provided by nongenetic healthcare professionals. We evaluated the attitudes, knowledge, and self-efficacy of surgeons, oncologists, and nurses regarding mainstream genetic testing and the feasibility to incorporate pre-test genetic counseling into routine care.

METHODS

We offered an online training to healthcare professionals from 13 hospitals and implemented a mainstream genetic testing pathway in 11/13 (85%) hospitals. Questionnaires were sent before (T0) and 6 months after (T1) completing the training. Those who did not complete the training received a questionnaire to assess their motivations.

RESULTS

In 11 hospitals, 80 (65%) healthcare professionals completed the training, of whom 70 (88%) completed both questionnaires. The attitudes, (perceived) knowledge and self-efficacy of healthcare professionals were high both at baseline and 6 months after completing the training. After 6 months, their perceived knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of a genetic test and implications for family members had significantly improved (p = 0.012 and p = 0.021, respectively). For the majority (89%), the time investment for pre-test genetic counseling was less than 15 min per patient and as expected or better. Healthcare professionals considered the total time investment feasible to incorporate mainstream genetic testing into their daily practice. The main barrier to complete the training was lack of time. The online training was considered useful, with a rating of 8/10.

CONCLUSION

Surgical oncologists and nurses in breast cancer care feel well-equipped and motivated to provide pre-test genetic counseling after completion of an online training module.

Mainstream genetic testing for high-grade ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers: A tertiary referral centre experience

BACKGROUND

Fifteen percent of ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal (OTP) invasive epithelial cancers are linked to an underlying heritable pathogenic variant (PV) in the BRCA1/2 cancer susceptibility genes. Identifying a PV has management implications for an affected individual and relatives. Cancer team-facilitated genetic testing (mainstreaming) aims to provide equitable systematic access to genetic testing for appropriate patients.

AIM

To evaluate a multi-disciplinary team (MDT)-led mainstream germline genetic testing program for OTP cancer at a tertiary referral centre.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of our MDT-led mainstream genetic testing program initiated in June 2017. We included all patients diagnosed with OTP cancer registered with the hospital gynaecological oncology MDT from program initiation to December 2020. Patients were considered eligible for testing if they were diagnosed with a high-grade epithelial OTP AND ≤70 years, OR if >70 with a first/second degree relative with breast and/or ovarian cancer OR Jewish ancestry.

RESULTS

Of 205 women diagnosed with high-grade epithelial OTP cancer, 140 were eligible for mainstreaming. Eight-five percent were mainstreamed, with the gynae-oncologists facilitating 64.5% of tests. The overall PV detection rate in BRCA1/2 was 10.1% (BRCA1 n = 9, BRCA2 n = 3). The median turnaround time (TAT) was 44.5 days (range 16-118). All women with PV were referred to the Familial Cancer Service for further assessment and five (of six eligible; 83%) were subsequently treated with polyadenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase inhibitors. Cascade testing was undertaken in 75% of families with a mean of three relatives tested per proband.

CONCLUSION

Mainstreamed genetic testing is feasible, with an acceptable TAT, ensuring adequate opportunity to inform treatment decisions. Tumour testing and inclusion of moderate-risk cancer predisposition genes in mainstreaming represent potential pathways that will require further exploration.

Integration of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for All New Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends genetic testing (GT) for all women with breast cancer (BC), but implementation and uptake of GT has not been well-described.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for newly diagnosed BC patients or patients with a newly identified recurrence of BC seen in a multidisciplinary clinic (MDBC) who were offered genetic counseling (GC) and GT.

RESULTS

The 138 women attending the MDBC had a median age of 54 years and comprised non-Hispanic whites (46%), Asians (28%), Hispanics (17%), blacks (4%), and other (5%). Of the 105 (76%) patients without prior GT, 100 (95%) accepted GC, with 93 (93%) of these 100 patients undergoing GT. The patients meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for GT were more likely to undergo GT. Testing was performed with a 67- to 84-gene panel, together with an 8- to 9-gene STAT panel if needed. Among 120 patients with reports available, including 33 patients previously tested, 15 (12%) were positive (1 BLM, 1 BRCA1, 3 BRCA2, 1 BRIP1, 1 CFTR, 1 CHEK2, 1 MUTYH, 1 PALB2, 1 PRSS1, 1 RAD50, 1 RET, and 2 TP53), 44 (37%) were negative, and 61 (51%) had an uncertain variant. The median time to STAT results (n = 50) was 8 days. The STAT results were available before surgery for 47 (98%) of the 48 STAT patients undergoing surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

New BC patients attending the MDBC demonstrated high rates of acceptance of GC and GT. The combination of GC and GT can offer timely information critical to patient risk assessment and treatment planning.

Mainstreaming germline genetic testing for patients with pancreatic cancer increases uptake

Germline genetic testing is recommended for all patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) but uptake rates are low. We implemented a mainstreaming program in oncology clinics to increase testing for PC patients. Genetic counselors trained oncology providers to offer a standardized multigene panel and obtain informed consent using an educational video. Pre-test genetic counseling was available upon request. Otherwise, patients with identified pathogenic variants, strong family history, or questions regarding their results were referred for post-test genetic counseling. We measured rates of testing and genetic counseling visits. From September 2019 to April 2021, 245 patients with PC underwent genetic testing. This represents a 6.5-fold increase in germline testing volume (95% confidence interval 5.2-8.1) compared to previous years. At least one pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant (PV/LPV) was found in 34 (13.9%) patients, including 17 (6.9%) PV/LPVs in high or moderate risk genes and 18 (7.3%) in low risk or recessive genes. Five (2.0%) PVs had implications on treatment selection. 22 of the positive patients (64.7%) and an additional 8 PC patients (1 negative, 3 VUS, and 4 pre-test) underwent genetic counseling during the study period. Genetic counselors saw 2.0 PC patients/month prior to this project, 1.6 PC patients/month during this project, and would have seen 2.2 PC patients/month if all patients with pathogenic variants attended post-test counseling. Conclusions Mainstreaming genetic testing expands access for PC patients without overwhelming genetic counseling resources.

ESO-ESMO fifth international consensus guidelines for breast cancer in young women (BCY5)

We dedicate this manuscript in memory of a dear friend and colleague Bella Kaufman. The fifth International Consensus Symposium for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY5) took place virtually in October 2020, organized by the European School of Oncology (ESO) and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO). Consensus recommendations for the management of breast cancer in young women were updated from BCY4 with incorporation of new evidence to inform the guidelines. Areas of research priorities as well as specificities in different geographic and minority populations were identified. This manuscript summarizes the ESO-ESMO international consensus recommendations, which are also endorsed by the European Society of Breast Specialists (EUSOMA).

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.

Point/Counterpoint: Is It Time for Universal Germline Genetic Testing for all GI Cancers?

Use of germline genetic testing among patients with cancer is increasing because of (1) the availability of multigene panel tests that include multiple cancer susceptibility genes in a single test, (2) decreased costs of these tests and improvements in insurance coverage, and (3) US Food and Drug Administration-approval of genotype-directed therapies such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for individuals with certain cancers and pathogenic germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (with possible benefits with other genes in the homologous repair deficiency pathway). In addition, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines have already endorsed germline genetic testing for all patients with certain cancer types (epithelial ovarian cancer, exocrine pancreatic cancer, and high-grade/metastatic prostate cancer), regardless of age or personal/family history of cancer. Herein, we debate the pros and cons of offering germline multigene panel testing to all patients diagnosed with any GI cancer. The authors agree that it may just be a matter of time before germline multigene panel testing is offered to all patients with cancer; however, this article will highlight some of the benefits, risks, and limitations of this approach so that research can help fill some of the gaps to ensure that genetic medicine continues to be implemented in ways that improve real-world patient care and outcomes.

Attitudes and training needs of oncologists and surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in a low-to-middle income Asian country

With the advent of poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapies, the focus of genetic testing for breast, ovarian, and other cancers has shifted from risk management to treatment decision-making in high-resource settings. Due to the shortage of genetic counselors worldwide, alternative ways of delivering genetic counseling have been explored, including training nongenetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) to provide genetic counseling. However, little is known about the feasibility of adopting such models in healthcare settings with insufficient specialists, where population health literacy is low and where access to new therapies may be limited. In this study, we evaluated the attitudes, considerations, and self-efficacy of oncologists, breast surgeons, and general surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country with a universal healthcare system. We developed a 32-item survey via a modified Delphi method, which was then distributed via a purposive and network sampling approach. While 77% of respondents expressed interest in providing breast cancer genetic counseling, 85% preferred to refer patients directly to genetic services for genetic counseling and testing. The main considerations for mainstreaming were the cost of genetic testing and PARPi therapy, as well as the availability of support from genetics professionals. Respondents reported a lack of confidence in communicating genetic risk, particularly to patients with poor health literacy, and in the clinical management of patients with variants of uncertain significance. Our results highlight the urgent need to train more NGHPs in providing genetic counseling and testing in low-to-middle income countries, and suggest that the mainstay for genetic counseling in this setting may be for risk management rather than access to PARPi therapy.

BRCA1/2 testing for genetic susceptibility to cancer after 25 years: A scoping review and a primer on ethical implications

BACKGROUND

Mutations in the genes called BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with significantly elevated lifetime risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. This year marks 25 years since genetic tests for BRCA1/2 mutations became available to the public. Currently, comprehensive guidelines exist regarding BRCA1/2 testing and preventive measures in mutation carriers. As such, BRCA1/2 testing represents a precedent not only in genetic testing and management of genetic cancer risk, but also in bioethics. The goal of the current research was to offer a review and an ethical primer of the main ethical challenges related to BRCA testing.

METHOD

A systematic scoping review was undertaken following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Four databases were searched and 18 articles that met the inclusion criteria were synthetized narratively into a conceptual map.

RESULTS

Ethical discussions revolved around the BRCA1/2 gene discovery, how tests are distributed for clinical use, the choice to undergo testing, unresolved issues in receiving and disclosing test results, reproductive decision-making, and culture-specific ethics. Several unique properties of the latest developments in testing circumstances (e.g., incorporation of BRCA1/2 testing in multi-gene or whole genome sequence panels and tests sold directly to consumers) significantly raised the complexity of ethical debates.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary ethical discussion is necessary to guide not only individual decision making but also societal practices and medical guidelines in light of the new technologies available and the latest results regarding psychological, social, and health outcomes in cancer previvors and survivors affected by BRCA mutations.

Evaluation of a mainstream genetic testing program for women with ovarian or breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Mainstream genetic testing refers to genetic testing arranged by a patient's treating specialist. The aim of this study was to retrospectively review a Sydney-based ovarian cancer mainstream genetic testing program.

METHODS

A Cancer Genetics Service (CGS)-supported mainstream genetic testing program was commenced in 2015. The CGS provided training, paperwork and ongoing and adaptable advice regarding appropriate genes for testing and interpretation of results. Written and electronic medical records were reviewed until August 2019 to assess patient and family history characteristics, genetic testing eligibility, results and posttest management for women who had testing coordinated via mainstreaming or by the CGS.

RESULTS

Genetic testing was arranged for 289 women with ovarian cancer. Prior to 2017, 44% of genetic tests were mainstreamed, compared with 76% of tests from 2017 onwards. CGS was more likely to arrange testing for women with a strong family history of cancer and nonserous pathology. Germline pathogenic variants were detected in 13.7% (19/138) of women who had mainstream testing and 20.3% (14/69) of women tested by the CGS. Referral for posttest counseling occurred for pathogenic variant carriers identified through mainstreaming.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated successful uptake of a mainstream ovarian cancer genetic testing program by medical oncologists, as evidenced by higher proportion and absolute numbers of eligible ovarian cancer patients accessing genetic testing through this pathway over time. The genetic testing criteria were appropriately assessed by oncologists and posttest referral occurred where required.

Assessing the acceptability, feasibility, and usefulness of a psychosocial screening tool to patients and clinicians in a clinical genetics service in Australia

Increasing demand for clinical genetic services may impact the resources and quality of genetic counseling, potentially impacting patient outcomes. Using a psychosocial screening tool may aid the provision of genetic counseling by reliably identifying patients' psychosocial needs. The Genetic Psychosocial Risk Instrument (GPRI) is a validated genetic-specific screening tool designed to identify psychological risk factors that predict distress in patients having genetic testing. This questionnaire-based study investigated the perceived acceptability, feasibility, and usefulness of the GPRI in patients and clinicians in routine clinical genetic practice. From December 2018 to January 2019, 154 patients attending an Australian clinical genetic service were invited to complete a paper-based survey that included the GPRI. The GPRI was scored and provided to the clinician for use in the appointment. In February 2019, clinicians completed an anonymous online survey regarding acceptability, feasibility, and usefulness of the GPRI. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared, t tests, and regression analyses were used to analyze the patient data, and descriptive statistics were employed for clinician surveys. A total of 145 patients participated (94% response rate). The average GPRI score was 46.3 (95% CI 43.6-49.0) with 41% of patients meeting the 50-point threshold indicating high risk for psychological distress. The GPRI was highly acceptable to patients, regardless of their level of psychosocial risk. Fourteen clinicians participated (54% response rate): 85% found the GPRI not too time consuming, and 86% believed it improved patient care by identifying patient needs. All were willing to use the GPRI routinely. The use of the GPRI is highly acceptable to patients and clinicians in this setting, assisting in identifying patients at risk for distress, prompting clinicians to address concerns, provide psychosocial support, and consider ongoing referral. As 41% of patients' scores indicated a high risk of distress, the GPRI is an important tool for potentially enhancing overall patient outcomes.

Genetic testing in patients with triple-negative or hereditary breast cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent years there has been a dramatic evolution in the clinical utility of genetic testing with expanding therapeutic implications for individuals with breast cancer who harbor a germline mutation in BRCA1/2. As these therapeutic opportunities expand and evolve, this requires the clinical and research community to rethink the approach to genetic testing for individuals with breast cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Genetic testing is evolving from traditional testing models based on pretest counseling with the aim of identifying hereditary and individual risk for purposes of screening and risk reduction to contemporary models that utilize technology to improve accessibility and oncology led mainstreaming of testing where the oncologist refers for genetic testing, discloses the results and formal counseling occurs later in the process than in traditional models. The cost and accessibility to multigene panel testing have resulted in broad uptake despite the fact that clinical utility and appropriate interpretation of results are not yet well established. Furthermore, somatic testing for genomic alterations may also yield results beyond the disease with detection of germline mutations impacting the individual and their family more broadly than anticipated.

SUMMARY

With the establishment of poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors as part of the treatment armamentarium for early and advanced breast cancer, paradigms, algorithms, and resources for genetic testing need to rapidly change in order to adapt to the evolution of germline mutations from hereditary and individual risk predictors to predictive therapeutic biomarkers.