Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of the Diagnostic Yield and Patient Experience of Multiplex Gene Panel Testing For Hereditary Cancer Risk

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.

Privacy and utility of genetic testing in families with hereditary cancer syndromes living in three countries: the international cascade genetic screening experience

Background: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome are associated with increased lifetime risk for common cancers. Offering cascade genetic testing to cancer-free relatives of individuals with HBOC or LS is a public health intervention for cancer prevention. Yet, little is known about the utility and value of information gained from cascade testing. This paper discusses ELSI encountered during the implementation of cascade testing in three countries with national healthcare systems: Switzerland, Korea, and Israel. Methods: A workshop presented at the 5th International ELSI Congress discussed implementation of cascade testing in the three countries based on exchange of data and experiences from the international CASCADE cohort. Results: Analyses focused on models of accessing genetic services (clinic-based versus population-based screening), and models of initiating cascade testing (patient-mediated dissemination versus provider-mediated dissemination of testing results to relatives). The legal framework of each country, organization of the healthcare system, and socio-cultural norms determined the utility and value of genetic information gained from cascade testing. Conclusion: The juxtaposition of individual versus public health interests generates significant ELSI controversies associated with cascade testing, which compromise access to genetic services and the utility and value of genetic information, despite national healthcare/universal coverage.

Cases in Precision Medicine: Is There an Obligation to Return Reinterpreted Genetic Results to Former Patients?

Interpretation of many genetic test results can change over time as new data accumulate. Hence, physicians who order genetic tests may subsequently receive revised reports with important implications for patients' medical treatment-even for patients who are no longer in their care. Several of the ethical principles underlying medical practice suggest an obligation to reach out to former patients with this information. Discharging that obligation can be accomplished, at a minimum, by attempting to contact the former patient with their last known contact information.

Universal Genetic Testing vs. Guideline-Directed Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes Among Traditionally Underrepresented Patients in a Community Oncology Program

Background Detection of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) has implications for cancer screening, prognosis, treatment selection, clinical trial enrollment, and family testing. Published guidelines provide indications for PGV testing, determined by clinical and demographic factors, but their applicability in an ethnically and racially diverse community hospital population is unknown. This study describes the diagnostic and incremental yield of universal multi-gene panel testing in a diverse population in a community cancer practice. Methods We completed a prospective study of proactive germline genetic sequencing among patients with solid tumor malignancies at a community-based oncology practice in downtown Jacksonville, FL, between June 2020 and September 2021. The patients were unselected for cancer type, stage, family history, race/ethnicity, and age. PGVs identified using an 84-gene next-generation sequencing (NGS) tumor genomic testing platform were stratified by penetrance. National Comprehensive Cancer Networks (NCCN) guidelines determined incremental PGV rates. Results Two hundred twenty-three patients were enrolled, with a median age of 63 years, 78.5% female. 32.7% were Black/African American, and 5.4% were Hispanic. 39.9% of patients were commercially insured, Medicare/Medicaid insured 52.5%, and 2.7% were uninsured. The most common cancers in this cohort were breast (61.9%), lung (10.3%), and colorectal (7.2%). Twenty-three patients (10.3%) carried one or more PGVs, and 50.2% carried a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). Though there was no significant difference in the rate of PGVs based on race/ethnicity, African Americans were numerically more likely to have a VUS reported than whites (P=0.059). Eighteen (8.1%) patients had incremental clinically actionable findings that practice guidelines would not have detected, which was higher in non-whites. Conclusions In this racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort, universal multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) increased diagnostic yield over targeted guideline-informed testing. Rates of VUS and incremental PGV were higher in non-white populations.

A qualitative study of unaffected ATM and CHEK2 carriers: How participants make meaning of 'moderate risk' genetic results in a population breast cancer screening trial

Relatively little is known about experiences of individuals with a pathogenic variant in a moderately penetrant breast cancer gene, particularly those without a personal history of cancer. The WISDOM trial is testing a model of risk-based breast cancer screening that integrates genomic (nine genes and polygenic risk) and other risk factors. In the context of an embedded Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) study of WISDOM, we conducted qualitative interviews at two timepoints post-result disclosure with 22 ATM and CHEK2 carriers. Results disclosure and interview recordings were transcribed and analyzed using a grounded theory analysis framework. We found that participants minimized the significance of their results in comparison to BRCA; were surprised but not alarmed by the results in the absence of family history; did not fundamentally change their perception of their breast cancer risk despite the new genomic information; exhibited variable responses to WISDOM's screening and risk reduction recommendations; and shared test results with family but did not strongly encourage cascade testing. Participants viewed the results as having limited utility and responded accordingly. Our study offers important insights into how genetic test results for moderate-risk genes are received, understood, and acted upon in population screening context.

Statistical methods for Mendelian models with multiple genes and cancers

Risk evaluation to identify individuals who are at greater risk of cancer as a result of heritable pathogenic variants is a valuable component of individualized clinical management. Using principles of Mendelian genetics, Bayesian probability theory, and variant-specific knowledge, Mendelian models derive the probability of carrying a pathogenic variant and developing cancer in the future, based on family history. Existing Mendelian models are widely employed, but are generally limited to specific genes and syndromes. However, the upsurge of multigene panel germline testing has spurred the discovery of many new gene-cancer associations that are not presently accounted for in these models. We have developed PanelPRO, a flexible, efficient Mendelian risk prediction framework that can incorporate an arbitrary number of genes and cancers, overcoming the computational challenges that arise because of the increased model complexity. We implement an 11-gene, 11-cancer model, the largest Mendelian model created thus far, based on this framework. Using simulations and a clinical cohort with germline panel testing data, we evaluate model performance, validate the reverse-compatibility of our approach with existing Mendelian models, and illustrate its usage. Our implementation is freely available for research use in the PanelPRO R package.

Experiences of individuals with a variant of uncertain significance on genetic testing for hereditary cancer risks: a mixed method systematic review

The expansion of Multi-Gene Panel Testing (MGPT) has led to increased detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) among individuals with personal or family history of cancer. However, having a VUS result can impact on emotional and psychological wellbeing and cause challenges for non-geneticist healthcare providers. The purpose of this mixed methods systematic review was to examine what is currently known about the experiences of individuals with a VUS on genetic testing for inherited cancer susceptibility. The initial search was conducted in June 2020 using PUBMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsychInfo according to the Joanna Briggs methodology for systematic reviews. A total of 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies included in this review identified a range of emotional reactions to a VUS result, a general lack of understanding of a VUS result and its implications, frustration with a lack of healthcare provider knowledge, and a need for clear communication with healthcare providers. This review identified critical gaps in current knowledge to guide genetic counseling praxis, specifically in the knowledge of communication patterns and methods of improving communication with healthcare providers and family members and preferred risk management strategies. This will help to improve the counseling process and the management of care during and after genetic testing.

The Challenge of Genetic Variants of Uncertain Clinical Significance : A Narrative Review

Genomic tests expand diagnostic and screening opportunities but also identify genetic variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs). Only a minority of VUSs are likely to prove pathogenic when later reassessed, but resolution of the uncertainty is rarely timely. That uncertainty adds complexity to clinical decision making and can result in harms and costs to patients and the health care system, including the time-consuming analysis required to interpret a VUS and the potential for unnecessary treatment and adverse psychological effects. Current efforts to improve variant interpretation will help reduce the scope of the problem, but the high prevalence of rare and novel variants in the human genome points to VUSs as an ongoing challenge. Additional strategies can help mitigate the potential harms of VUSs, including testing protocols that limit identification or reporting of VUSs, subclassification of VUSs according to the likelihood of pathogenicity, routine family-based evaluation of variants, and enhanced counseling efforts. All involve tradeoffs, and the appropriate balance of measures is likely to vary for different test uses and clinical settings. Cross-specialty deliberation and public input could contribute to systematic and broadly supported policies for managing VUSs.

Psychological and health behaviour outcomes following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk: a mini-review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge of the genetic mechanisms driving hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) has recently expanded due to advances in gene sequencing technologies. Genetic testing for HBOC risk now involves multi-gene panel testing, which includes well characterized high-penetrance genes (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as moderate- and low-penetrance genes. Certain moderate and low penetrance genes are associated with limited data to inform cancer risk estimates and clinical management recommendations, which create new sources of genetic and clinical uncertainty for patients.

PURPOSE

The aim of this review is to evaluate the psychological and health behaviour outcomes associated with multi-gene panel testing for HBOC risk. The search was developed in collaboration with an Information Specialist (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre) and conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCare, PsycINFO, Epub Ahead of Publication.

RESULTS

Similar to the BRCA1/2 literature, individuals with a pathogenic variant (PV) reported higher levels of testing-related concerns and cancer-specific distress, as well as higher uptake of prophylactic surgery in both affected and unaffected individuals compared to those with variant of uncertain significance (VUS) or negative result. A single study demonstrated that individuals with a PV in a moderate penetrance gene reported higher rates of cancer worry, genetic testing concerns and cancer-related distress when compared to women with high penetrance PV. Analysis of cancer screening and prevention outcomes based upon gene penetrance were limited to two studies, with conflicting findings.

CONCLUSION

The findings in this review emphasize the need for studies examining psychological and health behavior outcomes associated with panel testing to include between group differences based upon both variant pathogenicity and gene penetrance. Future studies evaluating the impact of gene penetrance on patient-reported and clinical outcomes will require large samples to be powered for these analyses given that a limited number of tested individuals are found to have a PV.

Evolution of germline TP53 variant classification in children with cancer

Li-Fraumeni syndrome, caused by germline pathogenic variants in TP53, results in susceptibility to multiple cancers. Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and reclassification of variants over time pose management concerns given improved survival with cancer surveillance for LFS patients. We describe the experience of TP53 variant reclassification at a pediatric cancer center.

METHODS

We reviewed medical records (2010-2019) of 756 patients seen in Texas Children's Cancer Genetics Clinic. We noted initial TP53 classification and any reclassifications. We then classified TP53 variants following ClinGen TP53 variant curation expert panel recommendations using data from ClinVar, medical literature and IARC database.

RESULTS

Of 234 patients tested for TP53, 27 (11.5%) reports contained pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants and 7 (3)% contained VUS. By January 2022, 4 of 6 unique VUS and 2 of 16 unique P/LP variants changed interpretations in ClinVar. Reinterpretation of these 4 VUS in ClinVar matched clinical decision at the time of initial report. Applying TP53 VCEP specifications classified 3 VUS to P/LP/benign, and one pathogenic variant to likely benign.

CONCLUSIONS

Planned review of variant significance is essential, especially for patients with high probability of LFS.

Next Generation Sequencing and Molecular Biomarkers in Ovarian Cancer—An Opportunity for Targeted Therapy

Ovarian cancer is the deadliest of all gynecologic malignancies claiming the lives of nearly 14,000 women in the United States annually. Despite therapeutic advances, the ovarian cancer mortality rate has remained stagnant since the 1980’s. The molecular heterogeneity of ovarian cancers suggest they may be more effectively treated via precision medicine. Current guidelines recommend germline and somatic testing for all new epithelial ovarian cancer diagnoses to assist providers in identifying candidates for targeted therapies. Next generation sequencing (NGS) identifies targetable, driver, and novel mutations used to guide treatment decisions. Performing NGS is standard of care in many other malignancies, but for ovarian cancer the use of NGS in daily practice is still emerging. This review discusses the targetable genetic mutations and role of NGS and molecular biomarker testing in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Universal Germline Testing of Unselected Cancer Patients Detects Pathogenic Variants Missed by Standard Guidelines without Increasing Healthcare Costs

Simple Summary

Clinical genetic testing likely underestimates the frequency of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in a cancer patient population due to strict qualifications designated by practice guidelines. Accurate ascertainment of PGVs in cancer patients can be paramount to the treatment of hereditary cancer syndromes. Our prospective study aimed to (1) elucidate PGV frequency in an unselected cohort of cancer patients by offering universal germline testing regardless of eligibility by clinical guidelines and to (2) evaluate the impact of receiving such testing on cost of care. Results confirmed that over 50% of patients who harbored a PGV would not have qualified for testing under current guidelines and there was no increase in healthcare costs for patients who tested positive for a PGV. It is therefore feasible to offer universal germline testing for cancer patients in the clinic to detect PGVs without increasing healthcare costs.

Abstract

Purpose: To accurately ascertain the frequency of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in a pan-cancer patient population with universal genetic testing and to assess the economic impact of receiving genetic testing on healthcare costs. Methods: In this prospective study, germline genetic testing using a 105-gene panel was administered to an unselected pan-cancer patient population irrespective of eligibility by current guidelines. Financial records of subjects were analyzed to assess the effect of PGV detection on cost of care one year from the date of testing. Results: A total of 284 patients participated in this study, of which 44 patients (15%) tested positive for a PGV in 14 different cancer types. Of the patients with PGVs, 23 patients (52%) were ineligible for testing by current guidelines. Identification of a PGV did not increase cost of care. Conclusion: Implementation of universal genetic testing for cancer patients in the clinic, beyond that specified by current guidelines, is necessary to accurately assess and treat hereditary cancer syndromes and does not increase healthcare costs.

Uptake and acceptability of a mainstreaming model of hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer

Purpose:

To address demands for timely germline information to guide treatments, we evaluated experiences of patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer with a mainstreaming genetic testing model wherein multigene panel testing was ordered by oncologists with standardized pre-test patient education, and genetic counselors delivered results and post-test genetic counseling via telephone.

Methods:

Among 1203 eligible patients, we conducted a prospective single-arm study to examine patient uptake and acceptability (via self-report surveys at baseline and three-weeks and three-months following result return) of this mainstreaming model.

Results:

Only 10% of eligible patients declined participation. Among 1054 tested participants, 10% had pathogenic variants (PV), 16% had variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and 74% had no variant identified (NV). Participants reported high initial acceptability, including high satisfaction with their testing decision. Variability over time in several outcomes existed for participants with PV or NV: Those with NV experienced a temporary increase in depression (p_Time<0.001; p_Time2<0.001), and those with PV experienced a small increase in genetic testing distress (p=0.03). Findings suggested that result type, sex, and cancer type were also associated with outcomes including clinical depression and uncertainty.

Conclusion:

This mainstreaming model may offer a feasible approach for extending access to germline genetic information.

A Retrospective 5-Year Single Center Study Highlighting the Risk of Cancer Predisposition in Adolescents and Young Adults

The knowledge of inherited cancer susceptibility opens a new field of cancer medicine. We conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study. Data of AYA cancer patients registered between January 2014 and December 2018 were analyzed. The median age at cancer diagnosis of 704 patients (343 males, 361 females) was 32 years (range, 15-39 years), median follow-up was 181 days (range, 1-1975 days). Solid tumors were diagnosed in 575 (81.7%) patients, hematologic malignancies in 129 (18.3%) patients. Multiple primary cancers were reported in 36 (5.1%) patients. Malignancies that may be indicators of inherited cancer susceptibility were diagnosed in 2.6% of patients with cancers of the endocrine system, in 73% of cancers of the gastrointestinal system, in 88% of tumors of the central nervous system, in 92% of cancers of the urinary tract, and in 59% of head and neck tumors. In addition, all patients with breast cancer, sarcoma, and peripheral nerve sheath tumor were in need of genetic counselling. In sum, at least 181 of 704 (25.7%) AYA cancer patients presented with malignancies suspicious of harboring pathogenic germline variants. Evaluation of AYA cancer patients for hereditary cancer predisposition needs to be integrated into daily practice.

"I wish that there was more info": characterizing the uncertainty experienced by carriers of pathogenic ATM and/or CHEK2 variants

Little is known about what uncertainties patients experience after being identified to carry a pathogenic variant in a moderate-risk cancer gene as a result of undergoing multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility. Data regarding cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of risk management strategies for these variants continues to evolve, which has the potential to evoke uncertainty. Acknowledging uncertainty during pre- and post-test discussions is imperative to helping individuals to adapt to their results. A better understanding of this population's experience of uncertainty is needed to facilitate such discussions and is the aim of the current study. Semi-structured interviews (30-60 min in length), informed by Han and colleagues' taxonomy of uncertainty in clinical genomic sequencing, were conducted to assess motivations to pursue genetic testing, areas of perceived uncertainty, and strategies for managing uncertainty among 20 carriers of pathogenic variants in two moderate-risk genes, ATM and CHEK2. We found that participants pursue genetic testing with the expectation that results will clarify cancer risks and approaches to management. Participants experience uncertainties aligning with Han's taxonomy relating to the ambiguity of specific cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of certain risk management strategies. These uncertainties influenced decisions around the uptake of risk management strategies, which were additionally impacted by clinicians' uncertainty towards such strategies. Participants employ a variety of uncertainty management approaches to cope with their anxieties. Clinicians may wish to use these findings to facilitate patient adaptation to the implications of multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility during both pre- and post-test counseling sessions.

The Community Oncology and Academic Medical Center Alliance in the Age of Precision Medicine: Cancer Genetics and Genomics Considerations

Recent public policy, governmental regulatory and economic trends have motivated the establishment and deepening of community health and academic medical center alliances. Accordingly, community oncology practices now deliver a significant portion of their oncology care in association with academic cancer centers. In the age of precision medicine, this alliance has acquired critical importance; novel advances in nucleic acid sequencing, the generation and analysis of immense data sets, the changing clinical landscape of hereditary cancer predisposition and ongoing discovery of novel, targeted therapies challenge community-based oncologists to deliver molecularly-informed health care. The active engagement of community oncology practices with academic partners helps with meeting these challenges; community/academic alliances result in improved cancer patient care and provider efficacy. Here, we review the community oncology and academic medical center alliance. We examine how practitioners may leverage academic center precision medicine-based cancer genetics and genomics programs to advance their patients' needs. We highlight a number of project initiatives at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center that seek to optimize community oncology and academic cancer center precision medicine interactions.