Genetic Counseling and Testing in a Community Setting: Quality, Access, and Efficiency

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.

Outcomes of a universal germline screening program in a community urology practice

The role of germline genetic testing in urologic oncology has expanded in recent years. However, implementation of genetic testing in community practices remains a challenge, often due to limited access to qualified genetics trained providers. In this study, we report outcomes of a universal germline screening program in a community urology practice. Between November 2021 and September 2022, all patients referred for urology clinic visits at Frederick Health (Frederick, MD, USA) were provided an online genetics screening questionnaire prior to the visit. Responses were compared against National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for germline testing. Those who met criteria were provided educational materials at the end of the questionnaire, and then counseled by a trained urologic oncologist (HC) in the clinic or referred to a genetic counselor prior to testing. Testing was performed with a 36-gene pan-cancer panel (CancerNext) or a 14-gene targeted prostate cancer panel (ProstateNext), with or without additional RNA analysis (RNAinsight) (Ambry Genetics, CA, USA). Demographic and clinical parameters, as well as genetic testing results, were retrospectively collected under IRB approval. In the study period, 765 patients were seen over 1370 clinic visits. Of these, 505 patients (66.0%) completed the screening questionnaire. The majority were completed via email (54.5%) with the remainder (45.5%) via text message. Of the patients who completed screening, 125/505 (24.7%) met NCCN criteria for germline testing. 58/125 patients (46.4%) who met criteria underwent germline testing, of whom 5/58 (8.6%) had distinct pathogenic mutations identified. These included actionable mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and CHEK2, as well as an additional pathogenic mutation in NBN. Variants of unknown significance were identified in 8/58 patients (13.8%) in 11 total genes. Challenges to implementation of this program included meeting institutional requirements for genetic testing consent, facilitating specimen collection in clinic, and integration of results into the electronic health record. Genetic risk assessment for high-risk individuals is feasible as part of a universal screening program in a community urology practice. Approximately 8% of tested patients were found to have pathogenic germline mutations, which is consistent with contemporary tertiary referral cohorts.

The Evolution of Genetic Testing from Focused Testing to Panel Testing and from Patient Focused to Population Testing: Are We There Yet?

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.

Germline Pathogenic Variants in Patients With Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancers

PURPOSE

Inherited cancer susceptibility is often not suspected in the absence of a significant cancer family history. Pathogenic germline variants in pancreatic cancer are well-studied, and routine genetic testing is recommended in the guidelines. However, data on rare periampullary cancers other than pancreatic cancer are insufficient. We compared the prevalence of germline susceptibility variants in patients with pancreatic cancer and nonpancreatic periampullary cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six hundred and eight patients who had undergone pancreaticoduodenal resection at a tertiary referral hospital were studied, including 213 with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, 172 with ampullary cancer, 154 with distal common bile duct cancer, and 69 with duodenal adenocarcinoma. Twenty cancer susceptibility and candidate susceptibility genes were sequenced, and variant interpretation was assessed by interrogating ClinVar and PubMed.

RESULTS

Pathogenic or likely pathogenic, moderate- to high-penetrant germline variants were identified in 46 patients (7.7%), including a similar percentage of patients with pancreatic (8.5%) and nonpancreatic periampullary cancer (7.1%). Low-penetrant variants were identified in an additional 11 patients (1.8%). Eighty-nine percent of the moderate- to high-penetrant variants involved the major cancer susceptibility genes BRCA2, ATM, BRCA1, CDKN2A, MSH2/MLH1, and PALB2; the remaining 11% involved other cancer susceptibility genes such as BRIP1, BAP1, and MSH6. Almost all pathogenic variant carriers had a family history of cancer.

CONCLUSION

Patients with pancreatic and nonpancreatic periampullary cancer have a similar prevalence of pathogenic cancer susceptibility variants. Germline susceptibility testing should be considered for patients with any periampullary cancer.

Empowerment of genetic information by women at-risk of being carriers of Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophies

The emergence of therapies acting on specific molecular targets for Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophies (DBMD) led to expanded access of diagnostic DMD analysis. However, it is unclear how much of these advances have also improved healthcare and access to genetic testing for women at-risk of being carriers. This study evaluates the process of genetic counseling and empowerment of genetic information by women from DBMD families. We carried out a cross-sectional study between February and June 2022 in Brazil. The online survey with items regarding sociodemographic data; family history; access to health services; reproductive decisions; and the Genomic Outcome Scale was answered by 123 women recruited from a rare diseases reference service and a nationwide patient advocacy group. Genetic counseling was reported by 77/123 (62.6%) of women and 53.7% reported having performed genetic analysis of DMD. Although the majority knew about the risks for carriers of developing heart disease and muscle weakness, only 35% of potential carriers have had cardiac studies performed at least once in their lives. Country region, type of kinship, number of affected males in the family, age, notion of genetic risk, education level, and participation in advocacy groups were the main factors associated with adequate healthcare access to women and empowerment of genetic information. Education to health professionals and policies to expand access to carrier genetic testing, whether public policies or regulation of pharmaceutical companies' diagnostic programs, is paramount to improve the care of families with DBMD in Brazil.

Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk

As demand for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) continues to increase, so does the sense of urgency to scale up efforts to triage patients, facilitate informed consent, and order genetic testing for cancer risk. The National Society of Genetic Counselors outlines the elements of informed consent that should be addressed in a GCRA session. While this practice resource aims to improve health equity, research on how well the elements of informed consent are implemented in practice is lacking. This retrospective and prospective mixed-methods study assessed how adequately the elements of informed consent are addressed during pre-test GCRA among 307 community clinicians (CC) and 129 cancer genetic counselors (GC), and barriers they face to addressing these elements. Results revealed that more than 90% of both cohorts consistently addressed components of at least 5 of the 10 elements of informed consent during a pre-test consultation. Technical aspects and accuracy of the test and utilization of test results were the most similarly addressed elements. Notably, GCs more often review the purpose of the test and who to test, general information about the gene(s), and economic considerations whereas CCs more often review alternatives to testing. Both cohorts reported psychosocial aspects of the informed consent process as the least adequately addressed element. Time constraints and patient-related concerns were most often cited by both cohorts as barriers to optimal facilitation of informed consent. Additional barriers reported by CCs included provider lack of awareness, experience, or education, and availability of resources and institutional support. Findings from this study may contribute to the development of alternative delivery models that incorporate supplementary educational tools to enhance patient understanding about the utility of genetic testing, while helping to mitigate the barrier of time constraints. Equally important is the use of this information to develop continuing education tools for providers.

iKNOWgynetics - A web-based learning concept to empower primary care gynecologists to participate in the care of patients with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer

Familial cancer burden and genetics play an increasingly important role in the early detection and prevention of gynecological cancers. However, people with hereditary cancer risks are often identified late when they already have cancer. We aimed at developing and evaluating a training concept for primary care gynecologists-iKNOWgynetics-to improve their knowledge and awareness of genetic cancer syndromes and their ability to identify patients with increased familial cancer risks based on up-to-date evidence and current guidelines (in Germany, primary care includes all doctors treating patients on an outpatient basis without a clear separation of the expertise of the doctor or of their specialty). Starting off with a needs assessment among primary care gynecologists, we developed and evaluated an online training concept-using a web-based learning platform in combination with a live virtual seminar-to convey practice-relevant knowledge about familial cancer. After registration, participants get access to the web-based learning platform (www.iknowgynetics.de) to prepare for the virtual seminars and to use it as online reference to re-access the contents after the training. Evaluation included multiple-choice (MC) questions on knowledge and participants' self-efficacy to implement the acquired knowledge, which were administered in a pre-post design. Of 109 participants, 103 (94.5%) filled out pre- and post-questionnaires. Eighty-five participants were gynecologists in primary care from Berlin (81.2%) and Brandenburg (18.8%) and had an average of 24.1 years (SD = 8.5 years) of professional experience. After the training, participants answered significantly more knowledge questions correctly (M = 15.2 of 17, SD = 1.3) than before (M = 13.8 of 17, SD = 1.7) (p < 0.01) and felt more confident to be able to apply referral criteria for specialized counseling in practice (p < 0.001). The online-based training iKNOWgynetics considers the busy schedule of primary care gynecologists and supports them in acquiring practice-relevant information on familial cancer risks and on how to identify healthy persons at risk, which may ultimately help to improve the prevention of gynecological cancers. In future studies, the reported concept could be transferred to other entities.

Integration of Genetic Testing and Counseling in Patients With Breast Cancer in a Large, Multisite Community-Based Practice

PURPOSE

Despite data-driven consensus recommendations, there remains significant nonadherence to genetic screening and testing. More than 300,000 patients are diagnosed with breast cancer annually, with one third of these estimated to be eligible for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)/BRCA testing following National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Only 35% of eligible patients are referred for genetic counseling.

METHODS

The goal of this project was to apply NCCN guidelines for germline genetic testing to all new patients with breast cancer within a large community oncology practice to improve HRD/BRCA testing. Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology was used, and cycles were built on a proven teaching infrastructure. In cycle 1, providers were educated and directed to use electronic health record (EHR) templates in the setting of an initial diagnosis visit and treatment planning. Discreet data fields were created in the EHR during cycle 2 to streamline and automate the process. Appropriate patients were referred to the genetics team for further evaluation, counseling, and testing. Adherence to the plan was maintained and measured using data analytic reports and chart audits.

RESULTS

Of the 1,203 patients with breast cancer eligible for inclusion, 1,200 (99%) were screened according to NCCN guidelines. Of the screened patients, 631 (52.5%) met the referral/testing criteria. In total, 585 (92.7%) of the 631 were referred to a genetic specialist. Seven percent had previous referrals. A total of 449 (71%) patients were acceptable to genetics referral while 136 (21.5%) patients refused.

CONCLUSION

The implemented methods of education, NCCN guidelines imbedded within provider notes, and discreet data fields in the EHR have proven to be highly effective in screening appropriate patients and ordering subsequent genetic referrals.

Pivotal Role of Genetic Counselors in the Uptake of Germline Genetic Testing in Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer and the Impact of Testing on Surgical Decision Making

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing is increasingly utilized in breast cancer patients; however, testing rates remain low. We aimed to evaluate the rate of genetic testing at a tertiary academic medical center utilizing a multidisciplinary clinic model including genetic counselor.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective chart review was performed on a cohort of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients from January 2018 through February 2019. Patients were reviewed for genetic screening eligibility, consultation with a genetic counselor, and test results.

RESULTS

Final analysis included 426 patients. 261 (61.3%) were found to meet National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for genetic testing, of which 178 patient (68.2%) underwent testing and 32 patients (12.3%) declined testing. Of the 165 not eligible for testing, 5 patients were tested. A total of 183 patients underwent testing and 116 (63.4%) had a negative result, 17 (9.3%) were positive for at least one gene mutation and 50 (27.3%) were identified to have a variant of unknown significance (VUS). There was a positive association between those patients who met with a genetic counselor and eligibility for testing (OR 31.1, 95% CI 16.0-60.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic testing result has become an increasingly important factor when defining optimal surgical treatment for breast cancer patients. Increasing the availability of genetic consultation for breast cancer patients can improve testing rates and patient selection.

Insights into parent and adolescent patient understanding of genomic sequencing

In a rapidly evolving genomics landscape, parents of children with cancer are asked to consider complex genetic concepts in order to make decisions about sequencing and comprehend the implications of results, all while facing a challenging diagnosis. To optimize parent and patient understanding, it is critical that the clinicians offering sequencing and disclosing results are aware of patient and family expectations and sufficiently educate them about the processes, procedures, and potential outcomes of paired tumor–germline sequencing.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Comprehensive Review

Emerged in the early 2000s, direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has helped consumers access and understand their genetic information without the involvement of a healthcare provider. Unlike traditional clinical-based testing, in which a healthcare provider is responsible for ordering, testing, interpreting, and communicating the results, DTC testing provides valuable insights directly to individuals about their genetic information. It empowers consumers and their families to be proactive about their health and lifestyle. The online testing format has become increasingly popular due to its accessibility and affordability. However, it raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the results, data security and how to ensure privacy for consumers and regulators. A hybrid model combining elements from both DTC and clinical-based genetic testing has surfaced in the market recently. In the US, current health-related DTC genetic tests are not recognized for diagnostic purposes; instead, these tests are intended to provide genetic information that is associated with certain conditions, which may encourage consumers to take the opportunity to discuss the results and their implications with a healthcare provider. This DTC genetic testing review focuses on the fundamental concepts, applications, benefits, limitations, risks, and consumer concerns, as well as the state of the DTC framework compared with the clinical-based and hybrid models. Additionally, the regulatory oversight, data protection, and healthcare professional perspective on DTC genetic testing in the US will be discussed, including current policies and regulations.

Advancing health equity: A qualitative study assessing barriers and facilitators of implementing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk screening tools in community-based organizations

Genetic counseling and testing (GCT) inform cancer management for persons at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Community-based organizations (CBOs) may play a role in identifying at-risk Latinx individuals to connect them to GCT but data are lacking. Two academic centers and their four CBO partners planned to implement a validated questionnaire for HBOC risk screening ("HBOC risk screening tool"). This study aimed to assess CBO's preferences for HBOC risk screening tools, as well as the barriers and facilitators anticipated for future implementation. Pre-implementation focus groups were conducted with CBO's staff. Discussions centered on current practices to identify and refer at-risk patients. During the discussion, staff were asked to select one out of five validated HBOC risk screening tools to implement and to discuss anticipated barriers/facilitators for implementation. The four focus groups were coded and qualitative analyzed following the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Health Equity domains. All CBOs chose the Family History Screen 7 (FHS-7). Participants (N = 35) highlighted how the FHS-7 was easy to adapt to better fit the target population and changing guidelines. They had positive attitudes toward implementing the screening tool, stressed how the culture of the organization positioned them to reach the target population, and noted barriers in different CFIR domains (e.g., low knowledge about HBOC and GCT referrals; scarce available resources). Participants pointed to barriers related to health equity domains including limited access to GCT and follow-up care for uninsured and underinsured populations, challenges obtaining accurate family history, and immigration-related barriers. CBOs highlighted the importance of partnering with other stakeholders to overcome barriers. Findings emphasize the need to develop multi-level implementation strategies to overcome barriers and leverage facilitators. This study can inform the development of implementation toolkits for CBOs to implement HBOC screening tools to advance health equity.

The Role of Germline Mutations in Thoracic Malignancies: Between Myth and Reality

Considering the established contribution of environmental factors to the development of thoracic malignancies, the inherited susceptibility of these tumors has rarely been explored. However, the recent introduction of next-generation sequencing-based tumor molecular profiling in the real-word setting enabled us to deeply characterize the genomic background of patients with lung cancer with or without smoking-related history, increasing the likelihood of detecting germline mutations with potential prevention and treatment implications. Pathogenic germline variants have been detected in 2% to 3% of patients with NSCLC undergoing next-generation sequencing analysis, whereas the proportion of germline mutations associated with the development of pleural mesothelioma widely varies across different studies, ranging between 5% and 10%. This review provides an updated summary of emerging evidence about germline mutations in thoracic malignancies, focusing on pathogenetic mechanisms, clinical features, therapeutic implications, and screening recommendations for high-risk individuals.

Feasibility of cancer genetic counselling and screening in Cameroon: perceived benefits and barriers

Because there was no genetic testing service in Cameroon, we assessed the acceptance, perceived benefits and barriers and willingness to pay for genetic cancer screening in Cameroon amongst patients with cancers. We carried out a hospital-based, cross-sectional study on adult cancer patients at the Yaoundé General Hospital and the non-Governmental Organisation Solidarity Chemotherapy between February 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. This was a convenience sampling that included all consenting patients. Qualitative and quantitative data were analysed by Epi info version 7 and SPSS version 20. Our study included 160 (87.5% females) cancer patients, whose ages ranged from 20 to 82 years, with a mean of 49.9 ± 13.0 years. Only 11.9% had undergone some form of genetic counselling or information sessions, and most found this to be helpful in terms of increased knowledge and prevention strategies (13, 68.4%). Almost all participants (156, 97.5%) stated they will like their relatives to undergo genetic counselling. Of these, 151 (94.4%) expressed their desire for their relatives to discuss their cancer risk with a specialist. Perceived benefits of genetic testing included cancer prevention (108, 67.5%) and motivation of self-examination (81, 50.6%). Prominent possible barriers included the cost (129, 80.6%), unavailability of equipment (49, 30.6%) and anticipated anxiety (40, 25.0%). However, a majority of the participants (156, 97.5%) were willing to test for genetic mutations. One hundred and thirty-five (84.4%) participants were willing to pay for genetic testing, with the majority of them (71.8%) ready to pay between $16.7 and $100. Almost all of the participants expressed their willingness to receive cancer genetic counselling and testing but the cost became the main barrier. This pilot study will serve as a guide to the processes of establishing a cancer risk assessment clinic in Cameroon.

Germline BRCA-Mutated HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Overcoming Challenges in Genetic Testing and Clinical Considerations When Using Talazoparib

Genetic testing is essential to the diagnosis and management of patients with breast cancer. For example, women who carry mutations in BRCA1/2 genes have an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer and the presence of these mutations may sensitize the patient to treatment with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Two PARP inhibitors are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with germline BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (olaparib and talazoparib). The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Breast Cancer (Version 2.2023) recommend that all patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) be assessed for the presence of germline BRCA1/2 mutations. However, many women eligible for genetic testing do not receive it. Here, we provide our perspectives on both the importance of genetic testing and the challenges patients and community clinicians may face when trying to access genetic testing. We also present a hypothetical case study involving a female patient with germline BRCA-mutated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative mBC to highlight potential clinical considerations on the use of talazoparib, including the decision to initiate therapy, dosing considerations, potential drug-drug interactions, and managing side effects. This case illustrates the benefits of a multidisciplinary approach to managing patients with mBC and involving the patient in the decision-making process. This patient case is fictional and does not represent events or a response from an actual patient; this fictional case is for educational purposes only.

Residential Locale Is Associated with Disparities in Genetic Testing-Related Outcomes Among BRCA1/2-Positive Women

BACKGROUND

While research on hereditary genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations continues to emerge, there remain unanswered questions regarding access to testing and cancer-related care. Our study determined the associations between race/ethnicity, residential locale, and genetic testing provider and related outcomes among US women with BRCA1/2 genetic mutations.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-three BRCA1/2-positive women from vulnerable health backgrounds were recruited via private national Facebook BRCA1/2-oriented support groups and completed an online survey. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression for the associations between race/ethnicity, residential locale, and genetic testing-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Women ranged in age (18-75, M = 39.5, SD = 10.7), and most were non-Hispanic white (66.3%) and lived in a suburban locale (54.9%). Women living in suburban areas were significantly less likely (aOR, .369, 95% CI, .177-.771) to receive behavioral referrals after genetic testing compared to those living in an urban locale. Women living in rural areas and suburban areas were 4.72 times more likely (95% CI, 1.48-15.1, p = .009) and 2.61 times more likely (95% CI, 1.05-6.48, p = .038), respectively, to receive genetic testing from a primary care provider versus private genetic testing office/hospital compared to women in urban locales. Associations between race/ethnicity and genetic testing outcomes were not statistically significant. Residential locale did not predict the odds of undergoing surgery for risk reduction or surveillance for early detection.

CONCLUSION

Our study identifies disparities in genetic testing resources among women living in suburban and rural areas. These findings can be used to inform future care, research, and community resources that may impact services relating to genetic testing within these locales.

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

Telehealth in genetic counselling consultations: the impact of COVID-19 in a Portuguese genetic healthcare service

The already increasing use of telemedicine in the last few years has risen significantly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. With a fast implementation, it is important to understand the experience of genetic counselling patients using telehealth. To this end, we developed a study to understand the impact of the pandemic on genetics consultations, using a mixed-method approach through a questionnaire to collect the patients' opinions. The largest group included in the study was 26-45 years old (65%), and 33.6% had completed year 12 of secondary education. Due to the impact of the pandemic, we observed an increase of 84.5% in teleconsultations. The participants' satisfaction was quite significant, 67.3% felt comfortable discussing personal and family health, 53.6% were well-enlightened, and 59.1% did not find it difficult to build a doctor-patient relationship. However, 64.5% of our participants indicated using the service only for subsequent consultations but supported the idea of continuing with telemedicine in the future. Undoubtedly, this service is essential for better quality and healthcare support. The professionals involved must be increasingly trained to provide adequate genetic counselling and comfort to the patient. Training automatically influences the improvement of the service regarding the barriers encountered and consequently provides a better experience and satisfaction to the patient and their families.

Identification of Germline Variants in Patients with Hereditary Cancer Syndromes in Northeast Mexico

Hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) are genetic diseases with an increased risk of developing cancer. This research describes the implementation of a cancer prevention model, genetic counseling, and germline variants testing in an oncologic center in Mexico. A total of 315 patients received genetic counseling, genetic testing was offered, and 205 individuals were tested for HCS. In 6 years, 131 (63.90%) probands and 74 (36.09%) relatives were tested. Among the probands, we found that 85 (63.9%) had at least one germline variant. We identified founder mutations in BRCA1 and a novel variant in APC that led to the creation of an in-house detection process for the whole family. The most frequent syndrome was hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) (41 cases with BRCA1 germline variants in most of the cases), followed by eight cases of hereditary non-polyposic cancer syndrome (HNPCC or Lynch syndrome) (with MLH1 as the primarily responsible gene), and other high cancer risk syndromes. Genetic counseling in HCS is still a global challenge. Multigene panels are an essential tool to detect the variants frequency. Our program has a high detection rate of probands with HCS and pathogenic variants (40%), compared with other reports that detect 10% in other populations.

Guideline-Based, Multi-Gene Panel Germline Genetic Testing for at-Risk Patients with Breast Cancer

Background

Genetic testing for at-risk patients with breast cancer should be routinely offered. Knowledge generated may influence both treatment decisions and cancer prevention strategies among the patients themselves and their relatives. In this study, we report on the prevalence and patterns of germline mutations, using commercially available next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based multi-gene panels (MGP).

Patients and Methods

Consecutive at-risk breast cancer patients, as determined by international guidelines, were offered germline genetic testing using a 20-gene NGS-based panel at a reference lab. Samples of peripheral blood were obtained for DNA extraction and genetic variants were classified as benign/likely benign (negative), pathogenic/likely pathogenic (positive) or variants of uncertain significance (VUS).

Results

A total of 1310 patients, median age (range) 43 (19-82) years, were enrolled. Age ≤45 years (n = 800, 61.1%) was the most common indication for testing. Positive family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancers, and triple-negative disease were among the common indications. Among the whole group, 184 (14.0%) patients had pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants; only 90 (48.9%) were in BRCA1 or BRCA2, while 94 (51.9%) others had pathogenic variants in other genes; mostly in APC, TP53, CHEK2 and PALB2. Mutation rates were significantly higher among patients with positive family history (p = 0.009); especially if they were 50 years or younger at the time of breast cancer diagnosis (p < 0.001). Patients with triple-negative disease had relatively higher rate (17.5%), and mostly in BRCA1/2 genes (71.4%). Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were reported in 559 (42.7%) patients; majority (90.7%) were in genes other than BRCA1 or BRCA2.

Conclusion

Pathogenic mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are relatively common and could have been missed if genetic testing was restricted to BRCA1/2. The significantly high rate of VUS associated with multi-gene panel testing can be disturbing.

Implementation of a Population-Based Cancer Family History Screening Program for Lynch Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

Lynch syndrome increases risks for colorectal and other cancers. Though published Lynch syndrome cancer risk-management guidelines are effective for risk-reduction, the condition remains under-recognized. The Cancer Genetics Program at an academic medical center implemented a population-based cancer family history screening program, Detecting Unaffected Individuals with Lynch syndrome, to aid in identification of individuals with Lynch syndrome.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, simple cancer family history screening questionnaires were used to identify those at risk for Lynch syndrome. Program navigators triaged and educated those who screened positive about hereditary cancer, and genetic counseling and testing services, offering genetic counseling if eligible. Genetic counseling was provided primarily via telephone. Genetic counselors performed hereditary cancer risk assessment and offered genetic testing via hereditary cancer panels to those eligible. Remote service delivery models via telephone genetic counseling and at-home saliva testing were used to increase access to medical genetics services.

RESULTS

This program screened 212,827 individuals, over half of whom were considered underserved, and identified 133 clinically actionable genetic variants associated with hereditary cancer. Of these, 47 (35%) were associated with Lynch syndrome while notably, 70 (53%) were not associated with hereditary colorectal cancer. Of 3,344 patients offered genetic counseling after initial triage, 2,441 (73%) elected to schedule the appointment and 1,775 individuals (73%) completed genetic counseling. Among underserved patients, telephone genetic counseling completion rates were significantly higher than in-person appointment completion rates (P < .05). While remote service delivery improved appointment completion rates, challenges with genetic test completion using at-home saliva sample collection kits were observed, with 242 of 1592 individuals (15%) not completing testing.

CONCLUSION

Population-based cancer family history screening and navigation can help identify individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes across diverse patient populations, but logistics of certain downstream service delivery models can impact outcomes.

Examining interprofessional collaboration in oncogenetic service delivery models for hereditary cancers: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

In a context of limited genetic specialists, collaborative models have been proposed to ensure timely access to high quality oncogenetic services for individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility. Yet, extensive variability in the terminology used and lack of a clear understanding of how interprofessional collaboration is operationalised and evaluated currently constrains the development of a robust evidence base on the value of different approaches used to optimise access to these services. To fill in this knowledge gap, this scoping review aims to systematically unpack the nature and extent of collaboration proposed by these interventions, and synthesise the evidence available on their implementation, effectiveness and economic impact.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews, a comprehensive literature search will be conducted to identify peer-reviewed and grey literature on collaborative models used for adult patients with, or at increased risk of, hereditary breast, ovarian, colorectal and prostate cancers. An initial search was developed for Medline, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Cochrane and Web of Science on 13 June 2022 and will be complemented by searches in Google and relevant websites. Documents describing either the theory of change, planning, implementation and/or evaluation of these interventions will be considered for inclusion. Results will be summarised descriptively and used to compare relevant model characteristics and synthesise evidence available on their implementation, effectiveness and economic impact. This process is expected to guide the development of a definition and typology of collaborative models in oncogenetics that could help strengthen the knowledge base on these interventions. Moreover, because we will be mapping the existing evidence on collaborative models in oncogenetics, the proposed review will help us identify areas where additional research might be needed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research does not require ethics approval. Results from this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles and conferences.

Disparities in cancer genetics care by race/ethnicity among pan-cancer patients with pathogenic germline variants

BACKGROUND

Germline risk assessment is increasing as part of cancer care; however, disparities in subsequent genetic counseling are unknown.

METHODS

Pan-cancer patients were prospectively consented to tumor-normal sequencing via custom next generation sequencing panel (Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets) inclusive of germline analysis of ≥76 genes from January 2015 through December 2019 (97.5% research nonbillable) with protocol for genetics referral. Rates of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PVs) and downstream counseling were compared across ancestry groups (mutually exclusive groups based on self-reported race/ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jewish [AJ] heritage) using nonparametric tests and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among 15,775 patients (59.6%, non-Hispanic [NH]-White; 15.7%, AJ; 20.5%, non-White [6.9%, Asian; 6.8%, Black/African American (AA); 6.7%, Hispanic; 0.1%, Other], and 4.2%, unknown), 2663 (17%) had a PV. Non-White patients had a lower PV rate (n = 433, 13.4%) compared to NH-Whites (n = 1451, 15.4%) and AJ patients (n = 683, 27.6%), p < .01, with differences in mostly moderate and low/recessive/uncertain penetrance variants. Among 2239 patients with new PV, 1652 (73.8%) completed recommended genetic counseling. Non-White patients had lower rates of genetic counseling (67.7%) than NH-White (73.7%) and AJ patients (78.8%), p < .01, with lower rates occurring in Black/AA (63%) compared to NH-White patients, even after adjustment for confounders (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.97; p = .036). Non-White, particularly Black/AA and Asian, probands had a trend toward lower rates and numbers of at-risk family members being seen for counseling/genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite minimizing barriers to genetic testing, non-White patients were less likely to receive recommended cancer genetics follow-up, with potential implications for oncologic care, cancer risk reduction, and at-risk family members.

LAY SUMMARY

Genetic testing is becoming an important part of cancer care, and we wanted to see if genetics care was different between individuals of different backgrounds. We studied 15,775 diverse patients with cancer who had genetic testing using a test called MSK-IMPACT that was covered by research funding. Clinically important genetic findings were high in all groups. However, Black patients were less likely to get recommended counseling compared to White patients. Even after removing many roadblocks, non-White and especially Black patients were less likely to get recommended genetics care, which may affect their cancer treatments and families.

Pilot study of a culturally sensitive intervention to promote genetic counseling for breast cancer risk

BACKGROUND

Despite the benefits of genetic counseling and testing, uptake of cancer genetic services is generally low and Black/African American (Black) women are substantially less likely to receive genetic services than non-Hispanic White women. Our team developed a culturally sensitive, narrative decision aid video to promote uptake of genetic counseling among Black women at risk for a hereditary breast cancer syndrome that can be incorporated in conjunction with population-based cancer risk assessment in a clinical setting. We report here a pilot study to demonstrate changes in intention to access genetic counseling and intervention satisfaction.

METHODS

Black women who were personally unaffected by breast cancer and were recommended for genetic counseling based on family history screening in a mammography center were recruited at the time of the mammogram. A prospective, pre-post survey study design, guided by theoretical constructs, was used to evaluate baseline and immediate post-intervention psychosocial factors, including intention to participate in genetic counseling and intervention satisfaction.

RESULTS

Pilot recruitment goals were met (n = 30). Pre-intervention, 50% of participants indicated that they were extremely likely to make a genetic counseling appointment, compared with 70% post-intervention (p = 0.05). After watching the intervention, 50% of participants indicated that the video changed their mind regarding genetic counseling.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated cultural satisfaction with a decision aid intervention designed to motivate Black women with hereditary breast cancer risk to attend a genetic counseling appointment. Our study showed that intention may be a specific and key construct to target in interventions designed to support decision-making about genetic services. Study results informed the design of a subsequent large scale, randomized implementation study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04082117 . Registered September 9, 2019. Retrospectively registered.

Multisystem Proteinopathy Due to VCP Mutations: A Review of Clinical Heterogeneity and Genetic Diagnosis

In this work, we review clinical features and genetic diagnosis of diseases caused by mutations in the gene encoding valosin-containing protein (VCP/p97), the functionally diverse AAA-ATPase. VCP is crucial to a multitude of cellular functions including protein quality control, stress granule formation and clearance, and genomic integrity functions, among others. Pathogenic mutations in VCP cause multisystem proteinopathy (VCP-MSP), an autosomal dominant, adult-onset disorder causing dysfunction in several tissue types. It can result in complex neurodegenerative conditions including inclusion body myopathy, frontotemporal dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or combinations of these. There is also an association with other neurodegenerative phenotypes such as Alzheimer-type dementia and Parkinsonism. Non-neurological presentations include Paget disease of bone and may also include cardiac dysfunction. We provide a detailed discussion of genotype-phenotype correlations, recommendations for genetic diagnosis, and genetic counselling implications of VCP-MSP.

Demographic Barriers for Genetic Testing in High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients in the Northern Michigan Area

Introduction: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has outlined guidelines for criteria regarding genetic testing for high-penetrance breast and/or ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. Due to the lack of availability of genetic counseling services in Northern Michigan prior to COVID-19, the utilization of genetic testing falls well below recommended guidelines.

Methods: Patients diagnosed with breast cancer in 2019 were randomly selected from Ascension Michigan's Northern Ministries Tumor Registry. A retrospective chart review was conducted. For patients who met NCCN criteria, their medical records were used to determine if genetic testing was recommended and if genetic testing was completed. Univariate (Crosstabs and t-tests) and multivariate tests with logistic regression were used to identify significant associations between the variables of interest.

Results: One hundred and two (102) patient charts were reviewed in this group; 55 (52.4%) were eligible by the NCCN guidelines for genetic testing. From this eligible subset of patients, only 29 were offered genetic testing, and only 21 were tested. The mean age of the patients offered genetic counseling was 56.2 years compared and 67.6 years in the group not offered counseling (p < 0.001). The patient's insurance type was an independent factor for obtaining genetic testing, specifically, the subgroup who had Medicare (OR = 0.73, CI = 0.01-0.54; p = 0.02). Patients insured through Medicare were less likely to obtain genetic testing after referral to a genetic counselor (p = 0.01).

Conclusion: Genetic counseling for high-risk breast cancer patients is below average in Northern Michigan, likely related to lack of physician referral, poor availability of counseling services, low socioeconomic status as well as a lower level of concern in older ages.

Healthcare Predictors of Information Dissemination About Genetic Risks

Objectives

Despite the benefits of genetic counseling and testing (GCT), utilization is particularly low among African American (AA) women who exhibit breast cancer features that are common in BRCA-associated cancer. Underutilization is especially problematic for AA women who are more likely to die from breast cancer than women from any other race or ethnicity. Due to medical mistrust, fear, and stigma that can be associated with genetic services among racial/ethnic minorities, reliance on trusted social networks may be an impactful strategy to increase dissemination of knowledge about hereditary cancer risk. Informed by the social cognitive theory, the purpose of this study is to determine: 1) which AA patients diagnosed with breast cancer and with identified hereditary risk are sharing information about hereditary risk with their networks; 2) the nature of the information dissemination; and 3) if personal GCT experiences is associated with dissemination of information about hereditary risk.

Methods

Among consented participants (n = 100) that completed an interview administered using a 202-item questionnaire consisting of open- and closed-ended questions, 62 patients were identified to be at higher risk for breast cancer. Descriptive statistics, bivariable chi-square, Pearson’s exact tests, and regression analyses were conducted to examine differences in characteristics between high-risk participants who disseminated hereditary risk information and participants who did not.

Results

Among high-risk participants, 25 (40%) indicated they had disseminated information about hereditary risk to at least one member in their family/friend network and 37 (60%) had not. Receipt of both provider recommendations and receipt of GCT services was associated with greater odds of disseminating information about hereditary risk with networks, OR = 4.53, 95%CI [1.33, 15.50], p = .02.

Conclusion

Interventions that increase self-efficacy gained through additional personalized knowledge and experience gained through provider recommendations and by undergoing GCT may facilitate information dissemination among social/familial networks.

Comparison of a Cancer Family History Collection and Risk Assessment Tool - ItRunsInMyFamily - with Risk Assessment by Health-Care Professionals

INTRODUCTION

Primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists lack time and training to appropriately identify patients at increased risk for hereditary cancer using family health history (FHx) and clinical practice guideline (CPG) criteria. We built a tool, "ItRunsInMyFamily" (ItRuns) that automates FHx collection and risk assessment using CPGs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ItRuns by measuring the level of concordance in referral patterns for genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT) between the CPGs as applied by the tool and genetic counselors (GCs), in comparison to oncologists and PCPs. The extent to which non-GCs are discordant with CPGs is a gap that health information technology, such as ItRuns, can help close to facilitate the identification of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer.

METHODS

We curated 18 FHx cases and surveyed GCs and non-GCs (oncologists and PCPs) to assess concordance with ItRuns CPG criteria for referring patients for GC/GT. Percent agreement was used to describe concordance, and logistic regression to compare providers and the tool's concordance with CPG criteria.

RESULTS

GCs had the best overall concordance with the CPGs used in ItRuns at 82.2%, followed by oncologists with 66.0% and PCPs with 60.6%. GCs were significantly more likely to concur with CPGs (OR = 4.04, 95% CI = 3.35-4.89) than non-GCs. All providers had higher concordance with CPGs for FHx cases that met the criteria for genetic counseling/testing than for cases that did not.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

The risk assessment provided by ItRuns was highly concordant with that of GC's, particularly for at-risk individuals. The use of such technology-based tools improves efficiency and can lead to greater numbers of at-risk individuals accessing genetic counseling, testing, and mutation-based interventions to improve health.

Feasibility of genetic testing for cancer risk assessment programme in Nigeria

Background

A high frequency of BRCA mutations has been established in Nigerian breast cancer (BC) patients. Recently, patients’ and first-degree relatives’ interest have been raised on cancer genetic risk assessment through our awareness activities in Nigeria. This led to the emergence of nurse-led cancer genetic counselling (CGC) and testing aimed at providing standard-of-care for individuals at increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers.

Methods

In June 2018, CGC and testing of patients with BC and ovarian cancer (OC) commenced in collaboration with Color Genomics Inc. for a 30-panel gene testing. Previously trained nurses in CGC at the University College Hospital, Ibadan offered genetic counselling (GC) to willing patients with BC and gynaecological cancer in four out-patient oncology clinics and departments for the pilot study. Consultation consisted of CGC, patient’s history, pedigree and sample collection for genetic testing (GT).

Results

Forty-seven patients – 40 with BC, five with OC and two with endometrial cancer received GC, and all chose to undergo GT. The average age at testing was 48.2 ± 12.1 years. Eight women reported a known family cancer history and there were more perceived benefits than barriers to GT with the patients experiencing the desire for none of their relative to have cancer. Results revealed no mutations in 27 (57.4%), 16 (4.0%) variants of unknown significance and 4 (8.5%) pathogenic mutations.

Conclusion

Personalised cancer care utilises GC and testing for cancer risk assessment towards prevention and early detection in high risk women. The study indicates the necessity of expanded cancer genetic services for integration into patient care and cancer prevention.

Access to genetic testing for rare diseases: Existing gaps in public-facing information

Genetic testing plays an increasingly important role in the diagnosis and potential treatment of inherited and rare conditions, such as aniridia-a disease that leads to abnormal eye development, as well as in health research on these conditions. As genetic testing is increasingly sought for accurate and early diagnosis of rare genetic disorders and in the context of direct-to-consumer genomics, it is critical to examine the public-facing information about access to these services and reimbursement policies. We conducted a targeted policy and public-facing resource search. Our analysis of resources available for the patient community revealed that there is very little practical guidance available about access and reimbursement for genetic testing for rare diseases. Greater clarity in public-facing resources about genetic testing would be beneficial to the patient community as it would promote informed choices about the procedure, mitigate potential harms associated with lack of information and enable patient engagement in their own health care.

Following NCCN guidelines within one hospital system in the United States: Comparison between cancer centers and genetic counselor utilization

Genetic testing is an instrumental tool used to determine whether an individual has a predisposition to certain cancers. Knowing of a hereditary cancer predisposition may allow a patient and their family to consider high-risk screening or risk-reducing options. Genetic counselors work with physicians to identify patients at increased risk for genetic testing using available guidelines such as those provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Information within one hospital system's cancer registry was used to identify individuals who qualify for genetic testing. This includes patients with a history of cancer of the breast (diagnosis ≤45, triple negative (TN) ≤60, and male), ovaries, colon (diagnosis ≤50), or uterus (diagnosis ≤50). Within this hospital system's registry, there are six cancer centers. Data were collected from cancer centers that utilized genetic counselors (GCs), and cancer centers that did not (non-GC) to determine whether there was a difference in genetic testing rates between GC and non-GC cancer centers. An analysis of 695 patients demonstrated a significantly higher proportion of eligible patients undergoing genetic testing at the GC cancer centers than at the non-GC cancer centers (91.6% versus 68.7%, p < .001). Further analysis of specific cancers showed a significantly higher uptake of genetic testing for eligible patients with colon cancer (90.8% versus 50%, p < .001), breast cancer ≤45 (99.5% versus 86%, p < .001), and ovarian cancer (91.3% versus 62.8%, p < .001) at the GC cancer centers than at the non-GC cancer centers. There was no significant difference in the proportion of testing of TN breast cancer ≤60 or uterine cancer ≤50 between cancer centers. These data suggest that having a GC working within a cancer center increases the ability to identify and offer testing to patients who meet NCCN genetic testing criteria based on their cancer type.

Genetic risk assessment for hereditary renal cell carcinoma: Clinical consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Although renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is believed to have a strong hereditary component, there is a paucity of published guidelines for genetic risk assessment. A panel of experts was convened to gauge current opinions.

METHODS

A North American multidisciplinary panel with expertise in hereditary RCC, including urologists, medical oncologists, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, and patient advocates, was convened. Before the summit, a modified Delphi methodology was used to generate, review, and curate a set of consensus questions regarding RCC genetic risk assessment. Uniform consensus was defined as ≥85% agreement on particular questions.

RESULTS

Thirty-three panelists, including urologists (n = 13), medical oncologists (n = 12), genetic counselors and clinical geneticists (n = 6), and patient advocates (n = 2), reviewed 53 curated consensus questions. Uniform consensus was achieved on 30 statements in specific areas that addressed for whom, what, when, and how genetic testing should be performed. Topics of consensus included the family history criteria, which should trigger further assessment, the need for risk assessment in those with bilateral or multifocal disease and/or specific histology, the utility of multigene panel testing, and acceptance of clinician-based counseling and testing by those who have experience with hereditary RCC.

CONCLUSIONS

In the first ever consensus panel on RCC genetic risk assessment, 30 consensus statements were reached. Areas that require further research and discussion were also identified, with a second future meeting planned. This consensus statement may provide further guidance for clinicians when considering RCC genetic risk assessment.

LAY SUMMARY

The contribution of germline genetics to the development of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has long been recognized. However, there is a paucity of guidelines to define how and when genetic risk assessment should be performed for patients with known or suspected hereditary RCC. Without guidelines, clinicians struggle to define who requires further evaluation, when risk assessment or testing should be done, which genes should be considered, and how counseling and/or testing should be performed. To this end, a multidisciplinary panel of national experts was convened to gauge current opinion on genetic risk assessment in RCC and to enumerate a set of recommendations to guide clinicians when evaluating individuals with suspected hereditary kidney cancer.

Genetic counseling, virtual visits, and equity in the era of COVID-19 and beyond

Overnight, as a result of the COVID‐19 pandemic, telehealth rapidly transitioned from limited application to widespread implementation. The field of genetic counseling was well positioned to make this transition to virtual care since there is generally less of a need for patients to be seen in‐person for physical exams or urgent care. Going forward, virtual visits will presumably become a mainstay in the provision of genetic services and it is anticipated that clinics will adopt “hybrid” models with both in‐person and virtual visit options. This commentary highlights the successes and challenges in the rapid implementation of virtual visits, focusing on who has benefited versus who has been challenged or left behind. We also discuss genetic testing considerations, including the additional steps required for patients and clinicians when testing is ordered outside of the clinical setting, which can result in delays or a lack of testing altogether. Future research considerations are presented to address the needs among the most vulnerable and help ensure equitable access and benefit.

Transitioning to telegenetics in the COVID-19 era: Patient satisfaction with remote genetic counseling in adult neurology

The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly changed genetic counseling services across the United States. At the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), a large academic hospital in an urban setting, nearly all genetic counseling (GC) visits for adult-onset disorders within the Department of Neurology were conducted via secure videoconferencing (telegenetics) or telephone between March and December 2020. Although telemedicine services have been steadily emerging, many clinical programs, including the neurogenetics program at UPenn, had not built infrastructure or widely utilized these services prior to the pandemic. Thus, little is known about patient attitudes toward receiving clinical GC services remotely. From May 18 to October 18, 2020, all individuals seen remotely for GC in adult neurology via telephone or telegenetics were surveyed about their satisfaction with telehealth GC (N = 142), with a response rate of 42% (N = 60/142). Telephone and telegenetics services were referred to as 'telehealth' in the surveys to capture patient perspectives on all remote GC services, though the majority (N = 49/60) of these visits were completed via telegenetics. Surveys included the modified telehealth usability questionnaire (MTUQ), genetic counseling satisfaction scale (GCSS), and novel questions about future telehealth use. Preliminary results suggest that patients were satisfied with receiving remote GC services in adult neurology, with most participants strongly agreeing to all items about satisfaction with telehealth. Just 2% of participants preferred only in-person visits in the future, but every participant was willing to consider using telehealth for future visits if their genetic counselor felt it was appropriate. Most participants preferred a hybrid model (73%), and some (25%) preferred only telehealth for future visits. Additionally, we found no differences in satisfaction with remote services based on visit type (initial vs. results disclosure) nor age. We conclude that remote GC is an acceptable method for the provision of services in adult neurology that is well-received by patients.

Maximizing cancer prevention through genetic navigation for Lynch syndrome detection in women with newly diagnosed endometrial and nonserous/nonmucinous epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations for reflex immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins to identify Lynch syndrome (LS), the uptake of genetic assessment by those who meet referral criteria is low. The authors implemented a comprehensive genetic navigation program to increase the uptake of genetic testing for LS in patients with endometrial cancer (EC) or nonserous/nonmucinous ovarian cancer (OC).

METHODS

Participants with newly diagnosed EC or OC were prospectively recruited from 3 cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Family history questionnaires were used to assess LS-specific family history. Reflex IHC for MMR proteins was performed with the inclusion of clinical directives in pathology reports. A trained genetic navigator initiated a genetic referral on behalf of the treating physician and facilitated genetic referrals to the closest genetics center.

RESULTS

A total of 841 participants (642 with EC, 172 with OC, and 27 with synchronous EC/OC) consented to the study; 194 (23%) were MMR-deficient by IHC. Overall, 170 women (20%) were eligible for a genetic assessment for LS: 35 on the basis of their family history alone, 24 on the basis of their family history and IHC, 82 on the basis of IHC alone, and 29 on the basis of clinical discretion. After adjustments for participants who died (n = 6), 149 of 164 patients (91%) completed a genetic assessment, and 111 were offered and completed genetic testing. Thirty-four women (4.0% of the total cohort and 30.6% of those with genetic testing) were diagnosed with LS: 5 with mutL homolog 1 (MLH1), 9 with mutS homolog 2 (MSH2), 15 with mutS homolog 6 (MSH6), and 5 with PMS2.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a navigated genetic program resulted in a high rate of genetic assessment (>90%) in patients with gynecologic cancer at risk for LS.

Oncologist-Reported Reasons for Not Ordering Multimarker Tumor Panels: Results From a Nationally Representative Survey

This study examines oncologist-reported reasons for not using multimarker tumor panel testing and the association between these reasons and oncologist-level, facility-level, and patient-mix characteristics.

METHODS

We used data collected from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,281) of medical oncologists participating in the National Cancer Institute's National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment.

RESULTS

In addition to testing not being seen as relevant (87%) and no evidence of test utility (77%), the most frequently reported reasons for not ordering a multimarker tumor panel test was difficulty in obtaining sufficient tissue (57%) and using individual gene tests (72%). These reasons were more likely to be reported by oncologists practicing in rural clinics and less likely to be reported by oncologists with an academic affiliation or with access to genetic services such as on-site genetic counselors and internal genetic testing policies.

CONCLUSION

Modifiable, organizational factors were associated with ordering multimarker tumor panels. Receipt of genomics training and organizational policies related to the use of genomics were associated with lower reporting of barriers to ordering multimarker tumor panels, pointing to potential targets for future studies aimed at increasing appropriate multimarker tumor panel testing in cancer treatment management.

Development of a culturally sensitive narrative intervention to promote genetic counseling among African American women at risk for hereditary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

African American women with hereditary breast cancer risk are less likely to undergo genetic counseling and testing compared with non-Hispanic White women. Inequities in the use of precision cancer care are likely to exacerbate racial disparities in cancer outcomes. A culturally sensitive multimedia narrative intervention was developed to motivate African American women at risk for hereditary breast cancer to engage in genetic counseling.

METHODS

Development of the intervention was grounded in the Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction using a phenomenological, deductive approach and employed multiple qualitative methods for data collection, including 1-on-1 interviews and story circles with members of the target audience to identify salient themes and lived experiences. Focus group testing was then conducted with members of the group of focus, primary care providers, and community stakeholders.

RESULTS

Six themes that mapped to the theoretical model were identified. Lived experiences were abstracted from story circle data to create a narrative storyline. Educational content and motivational messaging derived from the 6 themes were embedded into the script. Focus group testing with stakeholder groups was used to refine the intervention. Testing of the final multimedia narrative with focus groups indicated that the intervention was culturally sensitive and authentic, and the messaging was effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple qualitative data collection methods and a robust theoretical framework of health behavior were key elements for this study to develop a culturally sensitive, narrative intervention that reflects lived experiences and motivates underserved African American women with hereditary breast cancer risk to engage in genetic counseling. This strategy can be applied to mitigate racial inequities in the use of other genomic approaches for personalizing cancer care.

Germline Mutations in Other Homologous Recombination Repair-Related Genes Than BRCA1/2: Predictive or Prognostic Factors?

The homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway repairs double-strand DNA breaks, mostly by BRCA1 and BRCA2, although other proteins such as ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 are also involved. BRCA1/2 germline mutations are targeted by PARP inhibitors. The aim of this commentary is to explore whether germline mutations in HRR-related genes other than BRCA1/2 have to be considered as prognostic factors or predictive to therapies by discussing the results of two articles published in December 2020. The TBCRC 048 trial published by Tung et al. showed an impressive objective response rate to olaparib in metastatic breast cancer patients with germline PALB2 mutation compared to germline ATM and CHEK2 mutation carriers. Additionally, Yadav et al. observed a significantly longer overall survival in pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients with germline HRR mutations compared to non-carriers. In our opinion, assuming that PALB2 is a high-penetrant gene with a key role in the HRR system, PALB2 mutations are predictive factors for response to treatment. Moreover, germline mutations in the ATM gene provide a better outcome in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, being more often associated to wild-type KRAS. In conclusion, sequencing of HRR-related genes other than BRCA1/2 should be routinely offered as part of a biological characterization of pancreatic and breast cancers.

The Role of Genetic Testing for Parkinson's Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe current practices and attitudes about genetic testing for Parkinson's disease (PD) among neurologists, highlight the changing scene of genetic testing for PD, and provide guidance on facilitating PD genetic testing in a clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the 1990s, researchers have discovered several major gene variants contributing to PD etiology. A large body of literature now exists supporting the frequency of these variants in different populations and their effects on phenotype and clinical course. Recently, clinical trials have emerged with therapies targeting genetic forms of PD, specifically LRRK2 and GBA. Despite this growing knowledge, genetic testing for PD is not typically offered by neurologists including movement disorder specialists. Neurologists express concerns about the financial and practical issues of genetic testing as well as the potential impact on their patients. Researchers and specialists in the field are questioning this hesitation as clinical utility and consumer demand increase. Consideration of genetic testing for PD is shifting, as we enter a new era of precision medicine and gain clinical knowledge about PD. Barriers to testing, as perceived by clinicians, can be overcome with education, support, and involvement of multiple stakeholders with the goal of making PD genetic testing accessible to all patients.

Increased Needle Visibility in Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Liver Biopsy by an Echogenic Sheath: A Proof of Concept Study in a Human Cadaver

PURPOSE

For the safety and success of an ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver biopsy, needle visibility and needle tip identification are critical. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the influence of an innovative echogenic sheath placed over a standard biopsy needle on needle visibility in ultrasound imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ultrasound videos of three sheaths with different coating characteristics (echogenicity) and one conventional liver biopsy needle were recorded at two angles (30° and 60°) and two depths (5 and 10 cm) in a human cadaver. The videos were blinded for needle type and presented to five independent radiologists who used Likert-scale scoring to rank each video for six characteristics on needle visibility. In addition, a phantom model was used to acquire standardized images for quantitative evaluation of the ultrasound visibility. Comparative statistical analysis consisted of a one-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

The three prototype sheaths were ranked higher than the control needle at 60° with 5 cm depth, with an equal performance for the other conditions. The radiologists expressed more confidence in taking a biopsy with the echogenic sheaths than with the control needle, with 1 Likert score difference at 30°. Contrast analysis in the phantom model showed a statistically significant effect of a sheath (p = 0.004) on echogenic intensity.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that the use of an echogenic sheath may increase needle visibility, particularly for trajectories requiring steeper insertion angles. To investigate the superiority of the echogenic sheath over conventional needles, a clinical study is necessary.

The role of the genetic testing industry in patient education of hereditary cancer: An observational study assessing the quality of patient education videos

OBJECTIVES

Genetic testing (GT) companies have developed patient education videos to supplement or replace pre-test genetic counseling (GC) by certified genetic counselors (CGC). The aim of this study was to assess the quality of these videos compared to the standard of care (SOC).

METHODS

Videos from four major GT companies were selected from an internet search identifying pre-test patient education videos. A scoring rubric with 22 questions and 36 total points was devised to assess quality metrics, as described by the National Cancer Institute and National Society of Genetic Counselors. Twenty-two individuals with varying genetics expertise (3 gynecologic oncologists, 3 academic generalists, 4 CGC, a genetics community health worker, 3 cancer care navigators, and 8 medical students) scored each video. Scorers were blinded to others' assessments.

RESULTS

Invitae had the highest median score (26/36), followed by Myriad (22/36), Ambry (17.5/36), and Color (15/36). All videos scored highly in explaining DNA basics, cancer development, and hereditary cancer predisposition. All addressed benefits of GT but failed to address potential disadvantages. All scored poorly in explaining medical terms and different GT options. There was variability in addressing patient concerns including cost, privacy, and procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variation in the content of pre-test patient education videos between GT companies. None of the videos met the SOC for pre-test GC, and none addressed disadvantages of GT, possibly due to a conflict of interest. With improvement in content, accessibility, and use of interactive platforms, these videos may serve as an adjunct to in-person pre-test GC.

Utilization of telehealth in paediatric genome-wide sequencing: Health services implementation issues in the CAUSES Study

INTRODUCTION

Genome-wide sequencing (exome or whole genome) is transforming the care and management of paediatric patients with a rare disease because of its diagnostic capabilities. Genome-wide sequencing is most effective when both parents and the child are sequenced as a trio. Genetic counselling is recommended for all families considering genome-wide sequencing. Although telehealth is well established in genetic counselling for hereditary cancer and prenatal genetics, its use with genome-wide sequencing has not been well studied. The CAUSES Clinic at BC Children's and Women's Hospitals was a translational paediatric trio-based genome-wide sequencing initiative. Pre-test genetic counselling via telehealth (at a clinical site near the family's residence) was offered to families who had been previously evaluated by a clinical geneticist. We report on the first 300 families seen in the CAUSES clinic and compare health services implementation issues of families seen via telehealth versus on-site.

METHODS

Demographics, cost to families (travel and time), time to first appointment, complete trio sample accrual and diagnostic rates were studied.

RESULTS

Of the 300 patients, 58 (19%) were seen via telehealth and 242 (81%) were seen on-site for pre-test counselling. The mean time to completion of accrual of trio samples in the telehealth group was 56.3 (standard deviation ±87.3) days versus 18.9 (standard deviation ±62.4) days in the onsite group (p < 2.2 × 10^-16). The mean per-family estimated actual or potential travel/time cost savings were greater in the telehealth group (Can$987; standard deviation = Can$1151) than for those seen on-site (Can$305; standard deviation = Can$589) (p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth allowed for access to genome-wide sequencing for families in remote communities and for them to avoid significant travel and time costs; however, there was a significant delay to accrual of the complete trio samples in the telehealth group, impacting on time of result reporting and delaying diagnoses for families for whom genome-wide sequencing was diagnostic.

Epidemiological Analyses Reveal a High Incidence of Breast Cancer in Young Women in Brazil

PURPOSE

Breast cancer screening is not recommended for young women (< 40 years old); therefore, those diagnosed are more likely to have advanced and metastatic disease, reducing treatment outcomes. This study aimed to investigate breast cancer epidemiology among young women in Brazil.

METHODS

Data from three publicly available databases and a cohort from a university hospital in Brazil were analyzed in a retrospective study. Descriptive statistics was performed on disease prevalence and stage distribution across age groups. Incidence was estimated using age-standardized incidence ratio. The impact of age in disease-specific survival was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Invasive breast cancer prevalence data by age group revealed that 4.4% and 20.6% of patients were < 35 and < 45 years old, respectively. In the United States, this prevalence was 1.85% and 11.5%, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; P < .0001). The percentage of regional and metastatic diseases were higher in São Paulo State (Fundação Oncocentro de São Paulo [FOSP]) compared with the United States (45% and 9.8% v 29% and 5.7%, respectively; P < .0001). In FOSP, regional and metastatic disease prevalence were higher among young patients (53.5% and 11.3%, respectively). The median tumor size in patients < 40 years old was higher (25.0 mm × 20.9 mm; P < .0001), and young patients have higher risk to be diagnosed with positive lymph nodes (OR, 1.5; P = .004) and higher proportion of luminal-B and triple-negative (TNBC) tumors. Young patients have a poor disease-specific survival because of late-stage diagnosis and more aggressive breast cancer subtypes (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-enriched and TNBC) (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

In Brazil, breast cancer prevalence among young patients and late-stage incidence during this age span is higher. Advanced disease and more aggressive subtypes lead to a significant impact on breast cancer-specific survival in young patients.

How Have Multigene Panels Changed the Clinical Practice of Genetic Counseling and Testing

Historically, genetic testing (and billing) for hereditary cancer risk was essentially performed gene by gene, with clinicians ordering testing only for the genes most likely to explain a patient's or family's cancer presentation, with laboratories typically charging $1,000 to $1,500 for each gene that was sequenced. Given the expense, only patients at high risk of having a hereditary syndrome were offered testing. With the introduction of next-generation sequencing technologies, however, laboratories are able to test for multiple genes at the same time with greater efficiency, significantly decreased costs, and relatively little increased expense when adding additional genes. This has drastically altered clinical practice so that clinicians now typically order testing for a panel of multiple genes for most patients. Although this approach has streamlined the diagnostic odyssey, it has introduced several problems, as well, including difficulties in choosing the appropriate panel test for a given patient, assessing the significance of identified genetic variants (including variants of uncertain significance [VUS]), and understanding the disease risks and management associated with pathogenic variants in a given gene. Many laboratories offer testing for genes that have limited data supporting their associated cancer risks, which then leads to an inability to set management guidelines based on that gene. In addition, testing larger numbers of genes increases the likelihood of finding one or more VUS, which introduce their own management issues. Thus, although panel testing has certainly moved clinical practice forward in many ways, it has also raised its own set of problems that increase the complexity of genetic counseling and highlight the need for education of community practitioners on the complexities and nuances of this testing. Whenever possible, testing should be performed by, or in consultation with, cancer genetics professionals.

Communication about breast cancer genetic counseling with patients with limited health literacy or a migrant background: evaluation of a training program for healthcare professionals

Access to breast cancer genetic counseling is suboptimal for patients with limited health literacy or a migrant background due to ineffective communication and lack of healthcare professionals' recommendation. This study examines the effect of a blended training program (Erfo4all) for healthcare professionals on their awareness, knowledge, and self-efficacy towards communication about genetic counseling with patients with limited health literacy or a migrant background. In total, 59 breast surgeons and specialized nurses from 16 Dutch hospitals completed an online module and group training. Knowledge, self-assessed awareness, and self-efficacy were assessed before the training and 33 participants also completed a posttest questionnaire 6 months after the training program. We also assessed the perceived applicability and relevance of the training program from healthcare professionals' perspectives. We found a significant increase in self-assessed awareness of the prevalence and impact of limited health literacy and in healthcare professionals' self-efficacy to recognize limited health literacy and to communicate effectively with patients with limited health literacy or a migrant background. We did not find an increase in knowledge score. Almost all healthcare professionals reported that they use the techniques learned in the training, such as the teach-back method and plain language, and felt more confident discussing breast cancer genetic counseling. Our results suggest that a blended training program for healthcare professionals has potential to improve their ability to communicate effectively about breast cancer genetic counseling with patients with limited health literacy or a migrant background and offers a promising way to increase the referral rate for these groups of patients.