The Screen Project: Guided Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer Susceptibility in Canada

Primary care provider practices, attitudes, and confidence with hereditary cancer risk assessment and testing: A mixed methods study

PURPOSE

This study sought to better understand primary care providers' readiness to conduct population-based risk assessment and offer genetic testing for hereditary cancer.

METHODS

Sixty primary care providers completed a survey assessing their current practices, attitudes, and confidence with cancer risk assessment and testing. Sixteen participated in follow-up interviews. Descriptive statistics are presented and supported by qualitative data.

RESULTS

Providers preferred direct questioning over standardized screening tools. In interviews, providers said they are not ordering cancer-risk genetic testing even when it might be appropriate. Ninety-eight percent agree testing is important to clinical care, but 73% agree that it could negatively affect patients. Ninety percent were willing to offer targeted testing, but only 68% were willing to offer population-based risk assessment. Confidence performing different behaviors necessary in a cancer risk assessment varied, with only 32% confident responding to questions specifically related to genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Providers are willing to offer genetic testing but unlikely to do so because they lack confidence in genetics-specific skill areas. Unsystematic approaches to family history screening and fears about follow-up complexity may exacerbate health disparities. Interventions to increase provider confidence in ascertaining and managing hereditary cancer are needed to achieve widespread adoption of population-based risk assessment and guideline-recommended genetic testing.

Prevention of Ovarian Cancer: Where are We Now and Where are We Going?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe current and future strategies to reduce the burden of ovarian cancer through prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current strategies in genetic testing are missing a substantial number of individuals at risk, representing a missed opportunity for ovarian cancer prevention. Past efforts at screening and early detection have thus far failed to improve ovarian cancer mortality, and novel techniques are needed. Surgical prevention is highly effective, but surgical menopause from oophorectomy has significant side effects. Novel surgical strategies aimed at reducing risk while minimizing these harms are currently being studied. To maximize ovarian cancer prevention, a multi-pronged approach is needed. We propose that more inclusive and accurate genetic testing to identify more individuals at risk, novel molecular screening and early detection, surgical prevention that maximizes quality of life while reducing risk, and broader adoption of targeted and opportunistic salpingectomy will together reduce the burden of ovarian cancer.

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

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

Economic Evaluation of Population-Based BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing in Canada

Importance

Population-based BRCA testing can identify many more BRCA carriers who will be missed by the current practice of BRCA testing based on family history (FH) and clinical criteria. These carriers can benefit from screening and prevention, potentially preventing many more breast and ovarian cancers and deaths than the current practice.

Objective

To estimate the incremental lifetime health outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with population-based BRCA testing compared with FH-based testing in Canada.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing for all general population women aged 30 years compared with FH-based testing. BRCA carriers are offered risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy to reduce their ovarian cancer risk and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography screening, medical prevention, and risk-reducing mastectomy to reduce their breast cancer risk. The analyses were conducted from both payer and societal perspectives. This study was conducted from October 1, 2022, to February 20, 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes of interest were ovarian cancer, breast cancer, additional heart disease deaths, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ICER per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic-sensitivity-analyses (PSA) were undertaken to explore the uncertainty.

Results

In the simulated cohort of 1 000 000 women aged 30 years in Canada, the base case ICERs of population-based BRCA testing were CAD $32 276 (US $23 402.84) per QALY from the payer perspective or CAD $16 416 (US $11 903.00) per QALY from the societal perspective compared with FH-based testing, well below the established Canadian cost-effectiveness thresholds. Population testing remained cost-effective for ages 40 to 60 years but not at age 70 years. The results were robust for multiple scenarios, 1-way sensitivity, and PSA. More than 99% of simulations from payer and societal perspectives were cost-effective on PSA (5000 simulations) at the CAD $50 000 (US $36 254.25) per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Population-based BRCA testing could potentially prevent an additional 2555 breast cancers and 485 ovarian cancers in the Canadian population, corresponding to averting 196 breast cancer deaths and 163 ovarian cancer deaths per 1 000 000 population.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation, population-based BRCA testing was cost-effective compared with FH-based testing in Canada from payer and societal perspectives. These findings suggest that changing the genetic testing paradigm to population-based testing could prevent thousands of breast and ovarian cancers.

Policy Guidance for Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Services: Framework Development Study

BACKGROUND

The online offer of commercial genetic tests, also called direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GTs), enables citizens to gain insight into their health and disease risk based on their genetic profiles. DTC-GT offers often consist of a combination of services or aspects, including advertisements, information, DNA analysis, and medical or lifestyle advice. The risks and benefits of DTC-GT services have been debated and studied extensively, but instruments that assess DTC-GT services and aid policy are lacking. This leads to uncertainty among policy makers, law enforcers, and regulators on how to ensure and balance both public safety and autonomy and about the responsibilities these 3 parties have toward the public.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop a framework that outlines aspects of DTC-GTs that lead to policy issues and to help provide policy guidance regarding DTC-GT services.

METHODS

We performed 3 steps: (1) an integrative literature review to identify risks and benefits of DTC-GT services for consumers and society in Embase and Medline (January 2014-June 2022), (2) structuring benefits and risks in different steps of the consumer journey, and (3) development of a checklist for policy guidance.

RESULTS

Potential risks and benefits of DTC-GT services were mapped from 134 papers and structured into 6 phases. In summary, these phases were called the consumer journey: (1) exposure, (2) pretest information, (3) DNA analysis, (4) data management, (5) posttest information, and (6) individual and societal impact. The checklist for evaluation of DTC-GT services consisted of 8 themes, covering 38 items that may raise policy issues in DTC-GT services. The themes included the following aspects: general service content, validity and quality assurance, potential data and privacy risks, scientific evidence and robustness, and quality of the provided information.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the consumer journey and the checklist break the DTC-GT offer down into key aspects that may impact and compromise individual and public health, safety, and autonomy. This framework helps policy makers, regulators, and law enforcers develop methods to interpret, assess, and act in the DTC-GT service market.

Choices for cancer prevention for women with a BRCA1 mutation? a personal view

With widespread testing for susceptibility genes, increasing numbers of women are being identified to carry a mutation in one of many genes which renders them susceptible to cancer. The first gene to be identified (in 1994) was BRCA1 which increases a woman's risk for breast cancer (70%) and ovarian cancer (40%). The prevalence of BRCA1 gene mutations has been studied widely and in many countries, mostly in women affected with cancer. In many settings testing is offered routinely to women with serous ovarian cancer or early-onset or triple-negative breast cancer. It is preferable to identify a mutation in a healthy women prior to the diagnosis of cancer. The basic strategies for prevention include surgical prevention, chemoprevention and screening (early detection). Much progress has been made in the past two decades evaluating the benefits of these three approaches. In this commentary I provide my personal views regarding these various interventions in the context of counselling a newly diagnosed health woman with a BRCA1 mutation.

An Environmental Scan of Consumer-Initiated Germline Genetic Testing for Health Risks

As patient access to laboratory testing outside the clinic grows, health care providers can expect to confront increasing questions about the utility and interpretation of consumer-initiated genetic testing for health risks. We sought to characterize the marketplace diversity of consumer-initiated germline genetic testing options. An environmental scan was conducted to identify germline genetic testing companies that offer testing for at least one diagnosable health condition and are available for purchase by consumers in the US market without a visit to one's health care provider. We limited our scope to tests available between October 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021. We characterized variability in the content and processes used by 21 companies offering 74 distinct test products that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. A minority (8 of 21 companies) offered tests that assessed the presence of at least 1 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tier 1 condition for which detection can impact an individual's clinical care and for which evidence-based guidelines for detection and management exist.

The risks of cancer in older women with BRCA pathogenic variants: How far have we come?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to estimate the cumulative risks of all cancers in women from 50 to 75 years of age with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant.

METHODS

Participants were women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants from 85 centers in 16 countries. Women were eligible if they had no cancer before the age of 50 years. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and follow-up questionnaires every 2 years. Women were followed from age 50 until a diagnosis of cancer, death, age 75, or last follow-up. The risk of all cancers combined from age 50 to 75 was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

There were 2211 women included (1470 BRCA1 and 742 BRCA2). There were 379 cancers diagnosed in the cohort between 50 and 75 years. The actuarial risk of any cancer from age 50 to 75 was 49% for BRCA1 and 43% for BRCA2. Breast (n = 186) and ovarian (n = 45) were the most frequent cancers observed. For women who had both risk-reducing mastectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy before age 50, the risk of developing any cancer between age 50 and 75 was 9%.

CONCLUSION

Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant have a high risk of cancer between the ages of 50 and 75 years and should be counselled appropriately.

Barriers, interventions, and recommendations: Improving the genetic testing landscape

Individual, provider, clinic, and societal level barriers have been shown to undermine the potential impact of genetic testing. The current approach in the primary care setting places an exorbitant burden on both providers and patients. Current literature provides insight into how to address barriers across multiple levels (patient, provider, clinic, system) and at multiple stages in the testing process (identification, referral, counseling, and testing) but interventions have had limited success. After outlining the current approach to genetic testing in the primary care setting, including the barriers that prevent genetic testing uptake and the methods proposed to address these issues, we recommend integrating genetic testing into routine medical care through population-based testing. Success in efforts to increase the uptake of genetic testing will not occur without significant changes to the way genetic services are delivered. These changes will not be instantaneous but are critical in moving this field forward to realize the potential for cancer risk genetic assessment to reduce cancer burden.

Science of interdisciplinary salivary bioscience: history and future directions

Salivary bioscience is noteworthy in its history, as well as in the breadth and scope of its impact. The minimally invasive nature of sampling oral fluid allows for evaluation of individual and intra-individual change in biological processes in ways and settings not possible with traditional biospecimens. The range of measurements is expansive (e.g., DNA, hormones, cytokines, antibodies) and modern technologies enable simultaneous multisystem assessment from a singlet specimen. Used in combination with modern multivariate analytical models, the capacity to repeatedly assess multisystem and level measurements collected from the same individual over time enable operationalization, testing and refinement of complex biobehavioral models. This review describes the emerging narrative of salivary bioscience, and aims to inform and reveal opportunity for innovation and discovery.

Gynecologic Cancer Risk and Genetics: Informing an Ideal Model of Gynecologic Cancer Prevention

Individuals with proven hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 have elevated rates of ovarian, breast, and other cancers. If these high-risk people can be identified before a cancer is diagnosed, risk-reducing interventions are highly effective and can be lifesaving. Despite this evidence, the vast majority of Canadians with HCS are unaware of their risk. In response to this unmet opportunity for prevention, the British Columbia Gynecologic Cancer Initiative convened a research summit “Gynecologic Cancer Prevention: Thinking Big, Thinking Differently” in Vancouver, Canada on 26 November 2021. The aim of the conference was to explore how hereditary cancer prevention via population-based genetic testing could decrease morbidity and mortality from gynecologic cancer. The summit invited local, national, and international experts to (1) discuss how genetic testing could be more broadly implemented in a Canadian system, (2) identify key research priorities in this topic and (3) outline the core essential elements required for such a program to be successful. This report summarizes the findings from this research summit, describes the current state of hereditary genetic programs in Canada, and outlines incremental steps that can be taken to improve prevention for high-risk Canadians now while developing an organized population-based hereditary cancer strategy.

An appraisal of genetic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility

Most criteria for genetic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility require a prior diagnosis of prostate cancer, in particular cases with metastatic disease are selected. Advances in the field are expected to improve outcomes through tailored treatments for men with advanced prostate cancer with germline pathogenic variants, although these are not currently offered in the curative setting. A better understanding of the value of genetic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility in screening, for early detection and prevention is necessary. We review and summarize the literature describing germline pathogenic variants in genes associated with increased prostate cancer risk and aggressivity. Important questions include: what is our ability to screen for and prevent prostate cancer in a man with a germline pathogenic variant and how does knowledge of a germline pathogenic variant influence treatment of men with nonmetastatic disease, with hormone-resistant disease and with metastatic disease? The frequency of germline pathogenic variants in prostate cancer is well described, according to personal and family history of cancer and by stage and grade of disease. The role of these genes in aggressive prostate cancer is also discussed. It is timely to consider whether or not genetic testing should be offered to all men with prostate cancer. The goals of testing are to facilitate screening for early cancers in unaffected high-risk men and to prevent advanced disease in men with cancer.

Genetic Testing for All: Overcoming Disparities in Ovarian Cancer Genetic Testing

Nearly 3% of the population carries genetic variants that lead to conditions that include hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. These pathogenic variants account for approximately 20% of ovarian cancer cases, and those with germline pathogenic variants have an odds ratio between 4 and 40 for developing ovarian cancer compared with noncarriers. Given the high prevalence of genetic variants, multiple organizations, including ASCO, recommend universal genetic counseling and testing for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Unfortunately, most individuals with a hereditary ovarian cancer syndrome are unaware of their underlying mutation, and racial and ethnic minority individuals as well as patients of low socioeconomic status experience disproportionate rates of underrecognition, leading to late and missed diagnoses. In this article, we review the current understanding of disparities in genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer, the role of population-based genetic testing, and innovative strategies to overcome the critical inequities present in current cancer genetic medicine. Underuse and disparities related to accessing recommended genetic services are complex and multifactorial, requiring improvements in processes related to provider identification, genetic counseling and testing referral, and patient uptake/adherence. Through the expansion of remote genetic counseling, offering online strategies for genetic testing, and reaching at-risk relatives through direct relative contact cascade testing and population-based genetic testing, there are a growing number of innovations in the field of genetic medicine, many of which emphasize health equity and offer promising alternatives to the current paradigm of genetic testing.