1
|
Gima L, Solomon I, Hampel H. The Evolution of Genetic Testing from Focused Testing to Panel Testing and from Patient Focused to Population Testing: Are We There Yet? Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2024; 37:133-139. [PMID: 38606045 PMCID: PMC11006441 DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1770381] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/13/2024]
Abstract
The field of cancer genetics has evolved significantly over the past 30 years. Genetic testing has become less expensive and more comprehensive which has changed practice patterns. It is no longer necessary to restrict testing to those with the highest likelihood of testing positive. In addition, we have learned that the criteria developed to determine who has the highest likelihood of testing positive are neither sensitive nor specific. As a result, the field is moving from testing only the highest risk patients identified based on testing criteria to testing all cancer patients. This requires new service delivery models where testing can be mainstreamed into oncology clinics and posttest genetic counseling can be provided to individuals who test positive and those with concerning personal or family histories who test negative. The use of videos, testing kiosks, chatbots, and genetic counseling assistants have been employed to help facilitate testing at a larger scale and have good patient uptake and satisfaction. While testing is important for cancer patients as it may impact their treatment, future cancer risks, and family member's cancer risks, it is unfortunate that their cancer could not be prevented in the first place. Population testing for all adults would be a strategy to identify individuals with adult-onset diseases before they develop cancer in an attempt to prevent it entirely. A few research studies (Healthy Nevada and MyCode) have offered population testing for the three Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tier 1 conditions: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, Lynch syndrome, and familial hypercholesterolemia finding a prevalence of 1 in 70 individuals in the general population. We anticipate that testing for all cancer patients and the general population will continue to increase over the next 20 years and the genetics community needs to help lead the way to ensure this happens in a responsible manner.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren Gima
- Division of Clinical Cancer Genomics, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
| | - Ilana Solomon
- Division of Clinical Cancer Genomics, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
| | - Heather Hampel
- Division of Clinical Cancer Genomics, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Donohue KE, Gooch C, Katz A, Wakelee J, Slavotinek A, Korf BR. Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results. Clin Genet 2021; 99:638-649. [PMID: 33818754 DOI: 10.1111/cge.13917] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2020] [Revised: 12/11/2020] [Accepted: 01/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
The interpretation of genetic testing results is subject to error. This observational study illustrates examples of pitfalls and challenges in interpretation of genetic testing results as reported by genetics professionals. We surveyed genetics professionals to describe interpretation challenges, the types of variants that were involved, and the reported clinical impact of misconception of a test result. Case studies were then collected from a select group to further explore potential causes of misunderstanding. A total of 83% of survey respondents were aware of at least one instance of genetic test misinterpretation. Both professionals with and without formal training in genetics were challenged by test reports, and variants of unknown significance were most frequently involved. Case submissions revealed that interpretation pitfalls extend beyond variant classification analyses. Inferred challenges in case submissions include lack of genetic counseling, unclear wording of reports, and suboptimal communication among providers. Respondents and case submitters noted that incorrect interpretation can trigger unnecessary follow-up tests and improperly alter clinical management. Further research is needed to validate and quantify large-scale data regarding challenges of genetic results interpretation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katherine E Donohue
- Institute for Genomic Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
| | - Catherine Gooch
- Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.,Pediatrics, Division of Genetics and Genomic Medicine, Washington University at St Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Alexander Katz
- Medical Genomics and Metabolic Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Jessica Wakelee
- Center for the Study of Community Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Anne Slavotinek
- Division of Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Bruce R Korf
- Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Szymaniak BM, Facchini LA, Giri VN, Antonarakis ES, Beer TM, Carlo MI, Danila DC, Dhawan M, George D, Graff JN, Gupta S, Heath E, Higano CS, Liu G, Molina AM, Paller CJ, Patnaik A, Petrylak DP, Reichert Z, Rettig MB, Ryan CJ, Taplin ME, Vinson J, Whang YE, Morgans AK, Cheng HH, McKay RR. Practical Considerations and Challenges for Germline Genetic Testing in Patients With Prostate Cancer: Recommendations From the Germline Genetics Working Group of the PCCTC. JCO Oncol Pract 2020; 16:811-819. [PMID: 32986533 DOI: 10.1200/op.20.00431] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Germline genetic testing is now routinely recommended for patients with prostate cancer (PCa) because of expanded guidelines and options for targeted treatments. However, integrating genetic testing into oncology and urology clinical workflows remains a challenge because of the increased number of patients with PCa requiring testing and the limited access to genetics providers. This suggests a critical unmet need for genetic services outside of historical models. This review addresses current guidelines, considerations, and challenges for PCa genetic testing and offers a practical guide for genetic counseling and testing delivery, with solutions to help address potential barriers and challenges for both providers and patients. As genetic and genomic testing become integral to PCa care, developing standardized systems for implementation in the clinic is essential for delivering precision oncology to patients with PCa and realizing the full scope and impact of genetic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brittany M Szymaniak
- Department of Urology, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | | | - Veda N Giri
- Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | - Tomasz M Beer
- Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR
| | - Maria I Carlo
- Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Daniel C Danila
- Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Mallika Dhawan
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of California San Francisco, CA
| | - Daniel George
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, and Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
| | - Julie N Graff
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, VA Portland Health Care System/Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, OR
| | - Shilpa Gupta
- Division of Hematology, Oncology, and Transplantation, University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis, MN
| | - Elisabeth Heath
- Karmanos Cancer Institute and Department of Oncology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
| | - Celestia S Higano
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA
| | - Glenn Liu
- University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
| | - Ana M Molina
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY
| | - Channing J Paller
- Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD
| | - Akash Patnaik
- Department of Medicine, University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL
| | | | - Zachery Reichert
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Matthew B Rettig
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Charles J Ryan
- Division of Hematology, Oncology, and Transplantation, University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis, MN
| | - Mary-Ellen Taplin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Jake Vinson
- The Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium, New York, NY
| | - Young E Whang
- Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Alicia K Morgans
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Heather H Cheng
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA
| | - Rana R McKay
- Department of Medicine, University of California at San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cohen SA, Bradbury A, Henderson V, Hoskins K, Bednar E, Arun BK. Genetic Counseling and Testing in a Community Setting: Quality, Access, and Efficiency. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2019; 39:e34-e44. [PMID: 31099680 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_238937] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
There is an increasing need for genetic counseling and testing for individuals diagnosed with cancer, as treatment may be affected by the results. In addition, the identification of individuals before a diagnosis of cancer allows for optimal surveillance and early detection and prevention of cancer. With the recognition that as much as 10% of all cancers are hereditary, there is a growing need to improve access to genetic counseling and genetic testing, both before and at the time of diagnosis. This article focuses on models of identifying at-risk patients, including underserved communities; providing genetic counseling and testing in community practices; using telehealth; and collaborating with nongenetics health care providers and technological solutions to maximize efficiency and access.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie A Cohen
- 1 Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment Program, Ascension St. Vincent, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Angela Bradbury
- 2 Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | - Kent Hoskins
- 3 The University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
| | - Erica Bednar
- 4 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Banu K Arun
- 4 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|