Assessing relatives’ readiness for hereditary cancer cascade genetic testing

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.

Cascade genetic counseling and testing in hereditary syndromes: inherited cardiovascular disease as a model: a narrative review

Inherited cardiovascular diseases cover the inherited cardiovascular disease familial hypercholesterolemia and inherited cardiac diseases, like inherited cardiomyopathies and inherited arrhythmia syndromes. Cascade genetic counseling and testing in inherited cardiovascular diseases have had three decades of academic attention. Inherited cardiovascular diseases affect around 1-2% of the population worldwide and cascade genetic counseling and testing are considered valuable since preventive measures and/or treatments are available. Cascade genetic counseling via a family-mediated approach leads to an uptake of genetic counseling and testing among at-risk relatives of around 40% one year after identification of the causal variant in the proband, with uptake remaining far from complete on the long-term. These findings align with uptake rates among relatives at-risk for other late onset medically actionable hereditary diseases, like hereditary cancer syndromes. Previous interventions to increase uptake have focused on optimizing the process of informing relatives through the proband and on contacting relatives directly. However, despite successful information dissemination to at-risk relatives, these approaches had little or no effect on uptake. The limited research into the barriers that impede at-risk relatives from seeking counseling has revealed knowledge, attitudinal, social and practical barriers but it remains unknown how these factors contribute to the decision-making process for seeking counseling in at-risk relatives. A significant effect on uptake of genetic testing has only been reached in the setting of familial hypercholesterolemia, where active information provision was accompanied by a reduction of health-system-related barriers. We propose that more research is needed on barriers -including health-system-related barriers- and how they hinder counseling and testing in at-risk relatives, so that uptake can be optimized by (adjusted) interventions.

Expanding access to genetic testing for pancreatic cancer

Among individuals with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) 5-10% have a pathogenic germline variant (PGV) in a PDAC susceptibility gene. Guidelines recommend genetic testing among all individuals with PDAC. Additionally, at-risk relatives of PDAC patients benefit from their own genetic education, risk assessment, and testing. Multigene panel testing (MGPT) can identify individuals with inherited cancer risk who can benefit from early cancer surveillance and risk reduction strategies. This manuscript discusses various healthcare delivery models for MGPT including traditional in-person genetic counseling, novel integrated in-person infrastructures, telemedicine genetics care via telephone- or video-visits and direct-to-consumer testing. Barriers and facilitators to care on the individual, provider, and system level are also outlined including specific considerations for historically marginalized communities.

Strategies to improve implementation of cascade testing in hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review

Hereditary cancer syndromes constitute approximately 10% of all cancers. Cascade testing involves testing of at-risk relatives to determine if they carry the familial pathogenic variant. Despite growing efforts targeted at improving cascade testing uptake, current literature continues to reflect poor rates of uptake, typically below 30%. This study aims to systematically review current literature on intervention strategies to improve cascade testing, assess the quality of intervention descriptions and evaluate the implementation outcomes of listed interventions. We searched major databases using keywords and subject heading of "cascade testing". Interventions proposed in each study were classified according to the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. Quality of intervention description was assessed using the TIDieR checklist, and evaluation of implementation outcomes was performed using Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework. Improvements in rates of genetic testing uptake was seen in interventions across the different EPOC taxonomy strategies. The average TIDieR score was 7.3 out of 12. Items least reported include modifications (18.5%), plans to assess fidelity/adherence (7.4%) and actual assessment of fidelity/adherence (7.4%). An average of 2.9 out of 8 aspects of implementation outcomes were examined. The most poorly reported outcomes were cost, fidelity and sustainability, with only 3.7% of studies reporting them. Most interventions have demonstrated success in improving cascade testing uptake. Uptake of cascade testing was highest with delivery arrangement (68%). However, the quality of description of interventions and assessment of implementation outcomes are often suboptimal, hindering their replication and implementation downstream. Therefore, further adoption of standardized guidelines in reporting of interventions and formal assessment of implementation outcomes may help promote translation of these interventions into routine practice.

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.

Experiences of Family Communication and Cascade Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer in Medically Underserved Populations-A Qualitative Study

We sought to explore the intrafamilial communication and cascade genetic testing (CGT) experiences of patients with hereditary cancer from diverse, medically underserved populations and their relatives. Participants included patients receiving oncology care at an urban, safety net hospital in Texas or comprehensive cancer center in Alabama and their first-degree relatives. In-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews were completed wherein patients shared their experiences with genetic counseling (GC), genetic testing (GT), and communicating their results to relatives. Relatives shared their experiences receiving information from the patient and considering CGT. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and themes were identified. Of 25 participating patients, most recalled key aspects of GC and their GT results. Most (80%) patients shared their results with relatives, but only some relatives underwent CGT; patients reported low perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer as a common barrier to CGT for their relatives. Of 16 participating relatives, most reported feeling distress upon learning the patient's GT results. Relatives were fearful of learning their own CGT results but identified prevention and early detection as CGT benefits. Interviews identified opportunities during family communication to improve relatives' perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer. Tailored resources may support patients and relatives experiencing distress and fear during GT.

PREVENTION RELEVANCE

This study of intrafamilial communication and cascade genetic testing experiences of patients with hereditary cancer and their relatives from diverse, medically underserved populations identified relatives' perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer risks, distress, and fear as frequent reactions and barriers to testing. These results may inform future hereditary cancer prevention efforts.

Hereditary cancer testing in a diverse sample across three breast imaging centers

PURPOSE

Up to 10% of all breast cancers (BC) are attributed to inherited pathogenic variants (PV) in BC susceptibility genes; however, most carriers of PVs remain unidentified. Here, we sought to determine the yield of hereditary cancer gene PVs among diverse women attending breast imaging centers, who could benefit from enhanced surveillance and/or risk reduction interventions.

METHODS

This cross-sectional retrospective cohort study included consecutive women, unselected for personal or family cancer history, who were offered genetic testing for hereditary cancer genes at the time of breast imaging at three centers (November 2020-March 2022).

RESULTS

Among 1943 patients (median age: 66 years), self-reported race/ethnicity was White (34.5%), Hispanic (27.7%), African American (17.9%), Asian (4.5%), Ashkenazi Jewish (0.6%), Other (3.5%), and missing (13.0%). Thirty-nine patients (2%) were identified as carriers of a PV in an autosomal dominant clinically actionable hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC)-related or Lynch syndrome gene, most frequently, BRCA2 (6/39; 15.4%), PALB2 (8/39; 20.5%), CHEK2 (10/39; 25.6%), and PMS2 (5/39; 12.8%). Of the 34 PVs with known race/ethnicity, 47% were detected among non-White patients. Overall, 354/1,943 (18.2%) of patients met NCCN guidelines for HBOC gene testing and only 15/39 (38.5%) patients with an autosomal dominant clinically actionable PV met guidelines.

CONCLUSION

This population health approach extended the reach of genetic cancer risk assessment in a diverse population and highlighted the limits of a guideline-based approach. This may help address inequity in access to risk-appropriate screening and cancer prevention.

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.

Results of a randomized controlled trial of a decision support intervention for disclosing maternal BRCA genetic test results to children and adolescents

Objective

Evaluate the impact of a targeted family communication intervention for mothers undergoing genetic counseling and testing (GCT) for BRCA gene alterations.

Methods

Following BRCA GCT, mothers (N = 204; M age = 45 y) were randomized to either a control condition (self-help print materials) or intervention (printed decision support guide, based on behavioral decision making theory in health care) for supporting choices about disclosing maternal genetic test results to children and adolescents. Behavioral assessments were administered prior to maternal GCT and after receipt of results: primary outcomes were maternal disclosure to children and parent-child communication quality.

Results

Mothers in the intervention were > 2x likely to disclose their BRCA test results to their children compared to those in the control condition (odds ratio [OR] = 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06, 5.10; p = .04). This effect was moderated by children's ages: mothers of preteens (<13 y) assigned to the intervention were >3x likely to disclose their results (OR = 3.74, 95% CI = 1.49, 9.41; p = .005). In adjusted models, intervention was also associated with favorable changes in the quality of parent-child communication (95% CI = 0.30, 9.00; p < .05).

Conclusion

Decision support improves parent-child communication outcomes about GCT for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer.

Innovation

This trial is among the first to empirically evaluate the outcomes of a behavioral intervention to support family communication of maternal BRCA risk information to children.

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.

Only 32.3% of Breast Cancer Families with Pathogenic Variants in Cancer Genes Utilized Cascade Genetic Testing

BACKGROUND

Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes are responsible for approximately 5-10% of all diagnosed cancer cases. In order to identify individuals at risk in a cost-efficient manner, family members of individuals carrying pathogenic alterations are tested only for the specific variant that was identified in their carrier relative. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical use and implementation of cascade family testing (CFT) in families of breast cancer patients with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PVs/LPVs) in cancer-related predisposition genes.

METHODS

Germline sequencing was carried out with NGS technology using a 52-gene panel, and cascade testing was performed by Sanger sequencing or MLPA.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 1785 breast cancer patients (families), 20.3% were found to have PVs/LPVs. Specifically, 52.2%, 25.1%, and 22.7% of patients had positive findings in high-, intermediate-, and low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes, respectively. Although CFT was recommended to all families, only 117 families (32.3%) agreed to proceed with genetic testing. Among the first-degree relatives who underwent CFT, 70.3% were female, and 108 of 121 (89.3%) were cancer free. Additionally, 42.7%, 36.7%, and 20.6% were offspring, siblings, and parents of the subject, respectively. Our data suggest that CFT was mostly undertaken (104/117, 88.8%) in families with positive findings in high-risk genes.

CONCLUSIONS

Cascade family testing can be a powerful tool for primary cancer prevention by identifying at-risk family members. It is of utmost importance to implement genetic counseling approaches leading to increased awareness and communication of genetic testing results.

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.

Cascade testing after exome sequencing: Retrospective analysis of linked family data at 2 US laboratories

PURPOSE

Cascade testing, the process of testing a proband's at-risk relatives, is integral to realizing the full value of genomic sequencing. However, there is little empirical evidence on the uptake of cascade testing after a positive exome sequencing (ES) result in a population of probands with diverse clinical indications.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed administrative data from 2 US clinical laboratories that perform ES. For each proband with a positive ES result, we used linked family data to describe the frequency of relatives' cascade testing performed at the same laboratory, variant detection yield of cascade tests, and characteristics of probands and relatives categorized on the basis of cascade testing completion.

RESULTS

Among the 3723 positive ES results across both laboratories, 426 relatives of 282 probands completed cascade testing (uptake = 7.6%). An average of 1.5 relatives (SD = 0.9) were tested per proband. Of the 426 relatives tested, 200 had a variant of interest detected (variant detection yield = 47.0%).

CONCLUSION

In our real-world data analysis, a small proportion of probands with a positive ES result subsequently had relatives complete cascade testing at the same laboratory. However, approximately half of the tested relatives received a clinically significant result that could have implications for clinical management or reproductive planning. Additional research on ways to increase cascade testing uptake is warranted.

Young-onset colorectal cancer

In the past decades the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in people under the age of 50 years has increased, which is referred to as early-onset CRC or young-onset CRC (YO-CRC). YO-CRC is expected to account for 11% of colon cancers and 23% of rectal cancers by 2030. This trend is observed in different parts of the world and in both men and women. In 20% of patients with YO-CRC, a hereditary cancer syndrome is found as the underlying cause; however, in the majority of patients no genetic predisposition is present. Beginning in the 1950s, major changes in lifestyle such as antibiotic use, low physical activity and obesity have affected the gut microbiome and may be an important factor in YO-CRC development. Owing to a lack of screening, patients with YO-CRC are often diagnosed with advanced-stage disease. Long-term treatment-related complications should be taken into account in these younger patients, making the more traditional sequential approaches of drug therapy not always the most appropriate option. To better understand the underlying mechanism and define relationships between environmental factors and YO-CRC development, long-term prospective studies are needed with lifestyle data collected from childhood.

An approach to genetic testing in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Singapore

Introduction: There has been a rapid evolution in the treatment strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following the identification of targetable mutations, making genetic testing essential for patient selection. Although several international guidelines recommend genetic testing for patients with mCRPC, there is a lack of locally endorsed clinical practice guidelines in Singapore. Method: A multidisciplinary specialist panel with representation from medical and radiation oncology, urology, pathology, interventional radiology, and medical genetics discussed the challenges associated with patient selection, genetic counselling and sample processing in mCRPC. Results: A clinical model for incorporating genetic testing into routine clinical practice in Singapore was formulated. Tumour testing with an assay that is able to detect both somatic and germline mutations should be utilised. The panel also recommended the “mainstreaming” approach for genetic counselling in which pre-test counselling is conducted by the managing clinician and post-test discussion with a genetic counsellor, to alleviate the bottlenecks at genetic counselling stage in Singapore. The need for training of clinicians to provide pre-test genetic counselling and educating the laboratory personnel for appropriate sample processing that facilitates downstream genetic testing was recognised. Molecular tumour boards and multidisciplinary discussions are recommended to guide therapeutic decisions in mCRPC. The panel also highlighted the issue of reimbursement for genetic testing to reduce patient-borne costs and increase the reach of genetic testing among this patient population. Conclusion: This article aims to provide strategic and implementable recommendations to overcome the challenges in genetic testing for patients with mCRPC in Singapore. Keywords: Clinical model, genetic counselling, genetic testing, homologous recombination repair genes, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

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.

Measuring quality and value in genetic counseling: The current landscape and future directions

Genetic counselors strive to provide high-quality genetic services. To do so, it is essential to define quality in genetic counseling and identify opportunities for improvement. This Professional Issues article provides an overview of the evaluation of healthcare quality in genetic counseling. The National Society of Genetic Counselors' Research, Quality, and Outcomes Committee partnered with Discern Health, a value-based healthcare policy consulting firm, to develop a care continuum model of genetic counseling. Using the proposed model, currently available quality measures relevant to genetic counseling in the US healthcare system were assessed, allowing for the identification of gaps and priority areas for further development. A total of 560 quality measures were identified that can be applied to various aspects of the care continuum model across a range of clinical specialty areas in genetic counseling, although few measures were specific to genetic counseling or genetic conditions. Areas where quality measures were lacking included: attitudes toward genetic testing, family communication, stigma, and issues of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. We discuss these findings and other strategies for an evidence-based approach to quality in genetic counseling. Strategic directions for the genetic counseling profession should include a consolidated approach to research on quality and value of genetic counseling, development of quality metrics and patient-experience measures, and engagement with other improvement activities. These strategies will allow for benchmarking, performance improvement, and future implementation in accountability programs which will strengthen genetic counseling as a profession that provides evidence-based high-quality care to all patients.

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.

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.

Coping response and family communication of cancer risk in men harboring a BRCA mutation: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

Providing genetic counseling and genetic testing to at-risk blood relatives (cascade screening) is important for improving BRCA cancer outcomes. Intra-familial communication of risk is critical for cascade screening efforts yet relatively little is known about men's role in communicating BRCA risk. We sought to examine men's coping response to their BRCA status and intra-familial communication of risk to inform the development of tailored interventions that could promote cascade screening.

METHODS

We employed a sequential mixed-methods design. First, we measured coping response (quantitative) using the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA). MICRA scores were compared between BRCA+ men, BRCA- men and BRCA+ women. Subsequently, we used template analysis to analyze qualitative interviews exploring coping and intra-familial communication of risk. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) served as a guiding framework for identifying intervention targets.

RESULTS

BRCA+ men (n = 36) had significantly higher levels of distress (p < 0.001), uncertainty (p < 0.001) and negative experiences (p < 0.05) compared to BRCA- male counterparts (n = 23). BRCA+ men had significantly lower distress (p < 0.001) and uncertainty (p < 0.001) than BRCA+ women (n = 406). Qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with BRCA+ men (n = 35) identified promoters and barriers to active coping response and intra-familial communication of risk. Mapping results onto the TPB identified targets for tailoring person-centered approaches for men addressing beliefs/attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control.

CONCLUSIONS

Men and women appear to have different coping responses to learning their BRCA status. Developing tailored (sex-based), theory informed interventions may help promote intra-familial communication of BRCA risk and support cascade screening.

Improving our model of cascade testing for hereditary cancer risk by leveraging patient peer support: a concept report

Consensus and evidence suggest that cascade testing is critical to achieve the promise of cancer genetic testing. However, barriers to cascade testing include effective family communication of genetic risk information and family members' ability to cope with genetic risk. These barriers are further complicated by the developmental needs of unaffected family members during critical windows for family communication and adaptation. Peer support could address these barriers. We provide two illustrative examples of ongoing BRCA1/2-related clinical trials that apply a peer support model to improve family communication and functioning. Peer support can augment currently available genetic services to facilitate adjustment to and effective use of cancer genetic risk information. Importantly, this scalable approach can address the presence of cancer risk within families across multiple developmental stages. This applies a family-centered perspective that accommodates all potentially at-risk relatives. This peer support model can be further applied to emerging topics in clinical genetics to expand reach and impact.

Factors that Influence Intent to Share Genetic Information Related to Cancer Risk with Family Members

We describe factors influencing patient decisions to share positive cancer genetic test results with family members. We focused on patients who were diagnosed with several different cancer types but did not have a family history that was suggestive of an inherited risk. Participants were recruited from Mayo Clinic and had been recently diagnosed with cancer. An 80+ gene panel was performed. Before receiving genetic test results, patients completed a 49-item survey on their intent to share their results with relatives. 1,721 (57.7%) of 2,984 individuals who elected to pursue genetic testing completed the survey. Most patients planned to share cancer-related genetic results with a spouse or partner (97.0%), at least one adult child (92.2%), at least one sibling (86.2%), and with at least one parent (70.3%). Familial support scores and familial communication scores were predictive of intent to share cancer-related genetic test results. Our data highlight differences in family communication capacity and support that are important for clinicians to consider when supporting patients who wish to share cancer-related genetic test results with family members. Our data point to several potential interventional strategies that might increase the likelihood of cancer-related genetic test results being shared with family members at risk.

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.

Preimplantation genetic testing for carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants

The detection of germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant has relevant implications for the patients and their family members. Family planning, prophylactic surgery and the possibility of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M) to avoid transmittance of pathogenic variants to the offspring are relevant topics in this setting. PGT-M is valuable option for BRCA carriers, but it remains a controversial and underdiscussed topic. Although the advances in PGT technologies have improved pregnancy rate, there are still several important challenges associated with its use. The purpose of this review is to report the current evidence on PGT-M for BRCA1/2 carriers, ethical concerns and controversy associated with its use, reproductive implications of BRCA pathogenic variants, underlying areas in which an educational effort would be beneficial as well as possibilities for future research efforts in the field.

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.

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: patient recommendations for improved risk communication

Background

Multi‐gene panel testing is replacing single‐gene testing for patients with suspected hereditary cancer syndromes. The detection of a hereditary cancer syndrome allows tested individuals to initiate enhanced primary and secondary prevention efforts—where available—with a view to reduce disease burden. Current policy prevents testing programmes from communicating genetic test results with potentially affected family members, yet it is well documented that tested individuals face multiple challenges in initiating such discussions with relatives.

Objective

In response to this challenge, we sought patient recommendations about how to improve genetic risk communication to enhance interfamilial discussions about primary and secondary disease prevention.

Design

We conducted 25 semi‐structured interviews with individuals who received genetic testing through British Columbia’s Hereditary Cancer Program between 2017 and 2018. Interviews were professionally transcribed and analysed using a constant comparative approach.

Results

Participants described difficulty engaging in conversations with relatives who were resistant to receiving genetic risk information, when communicating with younger relatives and where participants reported strained familial relationships. Participants recommended that testing facilities provide a summary of results and implications and that resources be made available to prepare patients for challenging discussions with family members.

Discussion

Our study demonstrates that individuals undergoing genetic testing for suspected hereditary cancer syndromes would benefit from additional supportive resources alongside genetic counselling. Providing this on‐going support will enhance the accurate and transparent communication of risk to facilitate the uptake of cascade testing and enhanced prevention strategies.