The role of family history in predicting germline pathogenic variant carriers who develop pancreatic cancer: Results of a multicenter collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) surveillance is recommended for some individuals with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant (PV/LPV) in a PDAC susceptibility gene; the recommendation is often dependent on family history of PDAC. This study aimed to describe PDAC family history in individuals with PDAC who underwent genetic testing to determine the appropriateness of including a family history requirement in these recommendations. METHODS: Individuals with PDAC with a germline heterozygous PV/LPV in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, or PMS2 (PV/LPV carriers) were assessed for family history of PDAC in first-degree relatives (FDRs) or second-degree relatives (SDRs) from nine institutions. A control group of individuals with PDAC without a germline PV/LPV was also assessed. RESULTS: The study included 196 PV/LPV carriers and 1184 controls. In the PV/LPV carriers, 25.5% had an affected FDR and/or SDR compared to 16.9% in the control group (p = .004). PV/LPV carriers were more likely to have an affected FDR compared to the controls (p = .003) but there was no statistical difference when assessing only affected SDRs (p = .344). CONCLUSIONS: Most PV/LPV carriers who developed PDAC did not have a close family history of PDAC and would not have met most current professional societies' recommendations for consideration of PDAC surveillance before diagnosis. However, PV/LPV carriers were significantly more likely to have a family history of PDAC, particularly an affected FDR. These findings support family history as a risk modifier in PV/LPV carriers, and highlight the need to identify other risk factors.

Mother and Daughter Perspectives on Genetic Counseling and Testing of Adolescents for Hereditary Breast Cancer Risk.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risks, benefits, and utility of testing for adult-onset hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in adolescents and young adults. STUDY DESIGN: We evaluated interest in genetic testing of adolescents for adult-onset HBOC genes through semistructured interviews with mothers and adolescents who had previously participated in breast cancer research or had pursued (mothers) clinical testing for HBOC. RESULTS: The majority of mothers (73%) and daughters (75%) were interested in the daughter having genetic testing and were motivated by the future medical utility and current social utility of relieving anxiety and allowing them to prepare. Mothers and daughters both reported that approximately 3 years in the future was the best time to test the daughter regardless of the current age of the daughter. Overall, both mothers and daughters expressed the importance of the involvement of the mother to provide educational and emotional support but ultimately it was the daughter's decision to test. Balancing the independence and maturity of the daughter while reinforcing communication and support within the dyad was a prominent theme throughout the interviews. CONCLUSIONS: There is interest among some high-risk adolescents and young adults to engage in genetic counseling and undergo testing. Providing pretest and posttest genetic counseling, assessing preferences for parent involvement, and offering psychosocial support may be important if genetic testing for HBOC is offered to adolescents and young adults before age 25 years.

Association Between Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast Cancer and Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Among Multiethnic Women Diagnosed With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Increasing usage of multigene panel testing has identified more patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P or LP) variants in low-moderate penetrance genes or variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Our study evaluates the association between genetic test results and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among patients with breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among women diagnosed with unilateral stage 0-III breast cancer between 2013 and 2020 who underwent genetic testing. We examined whether genetic test results were associated with CPM using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among 707 racially or ethnically diverse women, most had benign or likely benign (B or LB) variants, whereas 12.5% had P or LP and 17.9% had VUS. Racial or ethnic minorities were twice as likely to receive VUS. Patients with P or LP variants had higher CPM rates than VUS or B or LB (64.8% v 25.8% v 25.9%), and highest among women with P or LP variants in high-penetrance genes (74.6%). On multivariable analysis, P or LP compared with B or LB variants were significantly associated with CPM (odds ratio = 4.24; 95% CI, 2.48 to 7.26). CONCLUSION: Women with P or LP variants on genetic testing were over four times more likely to undergo CPM than B or LB. Those with VUS had similar CPM rates as B or LB. Our findings suggest appropriate genetic counseling and communication of cancer risk to multiethnic breast cancer survivors.

COVID contingencies: Early epicenter experiences of different genetics clinics at a New York City institution inform emergency adaptation strategies.

The unique situational challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic have demanded creative modifications to the delivery of genetic services. Institutions across the country have adapted workflows to continue to provide quality care while minimizing the need for physical visits. As the first epicenter of the pandemic in the country, New York City healthcare workers and residents had to make rapid, unprecedented changes to their way of life. This article describes the workflow adaptations of genetic counselors across various clinical settings at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the largest provider of genetics care in New York City, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors observe how the adaptations impacted clinical care and the genetic counselors. Our lived experience and account can provide guidance for others during the current and future pandemics.

A Multi-Institutional Cohort of Therapy-Associated Polyposis in Childhood and Young Adulthood Cancer Survivors.

Prior small reports have postulated a link between gastrointestinal polyposis and childhood and young adulthood cancer (CYAC) treatment (therapy-associated polyposis; TAP), but this remains a poorly understood phenomenon. The aim of this study was to describe the phenotypic spectrum of TAP in a multi-institutional cohort. TAP cases were identified from eight high-risk cancer centers. Cases were defined as patients with ≥10 gastrointestinal polyps without known causative germline alteration or hereditary colorectal cancer predisposition syndrome who had a history of prior treatment with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy for CYAC. A total of 34 TAP cases were included (original CYAC: 27 Hodgkin lymphoma, three neuroblastoma, one acute myeloid leukemia, one medulloblastoma, one nephroblastoma, and one non-Hodgkin lymphoma). Gastrointestinal polyposis was first detected at a median of 27 years (interquartile range, 20-33) after CYAC treatment. A total of 12 of 34 (35%) TAP cases had ≥50 colorectal polyps. A total of 32 of 34 (94%) had >1 histologic polyp type. A total of 25 of 34 (74%) had clinical features suggestive of ≥1 colorectal cancer predisposition syndrome [e.g., attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), serrated polyposis syndrome, extracolonic manifestations of FAP, mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer, or hamartomatous polyposis] including 8 of 34 (24%) with features of multiple such syndromes. TAP is an apparently acquired phenomenon that should be considered in patients who develop significant polyposis without known causative germline alteration but who have had prior treatment for a CYAC. Patients with TAP have features that may mimic various hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes, suggesting multiple concurrent biologic mechanisms, and recognition of this diagnosis may have implications for cancer risk and screening.

Impact of Panel Gene Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer on Patients.

Recent advances in next generation sequencing have enabled panel gene testing, or simultaneous testing for mutations in multiple genes for a clinical condition. With more extensive and widespread genetic testing, there will be increased detection of genes with moderate penetrance without established clinical guidelines and of variants of uncertain significance (VUS), or genetic variants unknown to either be disease-causing or benign. This study surveyed 232 patients who underwent genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer to examine the impact of panel gene testing on psychological outcomes, patient understanding, and utilization of genetic information. The survey used standardized instruments including the Impact of Event Scale (IES), Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA), Satisfaction with Decision Instrument (SWD), Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (AT-20), genetics knowledge, and utilization of genetic test results. Study results suggested that unaffected individuals with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer who received positive results were most significantly impacted by intrusive thoughts, avoidance, and distress. However, scores were also modestly elevated among unaffected patients with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer who received VUS, highlighting the impact of ambiguous results that are frequent among patients undergoing genetic testing with large panels of genes. Potential risk factors for increased genetic testing-specific distress in this study included younger age, black or African American race, Hispanic origin, lower education level, and lower genetic knowledge and highlight the need for developing strategies to provide effective counseling and education to these communities, particularly when genetic testing utilizes gene panels that more commonly return VUS. More detailed pre-test education and counseling may help patients appreciate the probability of various types of test results and how results would be used clinically, and allow them to make more informed decisions about the type of genetic testing to select.

Self-Reported Questionnaire Detects Family History of Cancer in a Pancreatic Cancer Screening Program.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading cause of cancer death; approximately 5-10% of PDAC is hereditary. Self-administered health history questionnaires (HHQs) may provide a low-cost method to detail family history (FH) of malignancy. Pancreas Center patients were asked to enroll in a registry; 149 with PDAC completed a HHQ which included FH data. Patients with FH of PDAC, or concern for inherited PDAC syndrome, were separately evaluated in a Prevention Program and additionally met with a genetic counselor (GC) to assess PDAC risk (n = 61). FH obtained through GC and HHQ were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank sum and generalized linear mixed models with Poisson distribution. Agreement between GC and HHQ risk-assessment was assessed using kappa (κ) statistic. In the Prevention Program, HHQ was as precise in detecting FH of cancer as the GC (all p > 0.05). GC and HHQ demonstrated substantial agreement in risk-stratification of the Prevention Program cohort (κ = 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.87.) The sensitivity of the HHQ to detect a patient at elevated risk (i.e., moderate- or high-risk) of PDAC, compared to GC, was 82.9% (95% CI 67.3-92.3%) with a specificity of 95% (95% CI 73.1-99.7%). However, seven patients who were classified as average-risk by the HHQ were found to be at an elevated-risk of PDAC by the GC. In the PDAC cohort, 30/149 (20.1%) reported at least one first-degree relative (FDR) with PDAC. The limited sensitivity of the HHQ to detect patients at elevated risk of PDAC in the Prevention Program cohort suggests that a GC adds value in risk-assessment in this population. The HHQ may offer an opportunity to identify high-risk patients in a PDAC population.

A randomized noninferiority trial of condensed protocols for genetic risk disclosure of Alzheimer's disease.

INTRODUCTION: Conventional multisession genetic counseling is currently recommended when disclosing apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype for the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in cognitively normal individuals. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of brief disclosure protocols for disclosing APOE genotype for the risk of AD. METHODS: A randomized, multicenter noninferiority trial was conducted at four sites. Participants were asymptomatic adults having a first-degree relative with AD. A standard disclosure protocol by genetic counselors (SP-GC) was compared with condensed protocols, with disclosures by genetic counselors (CP-GC) and by physicians (CP-MD). Preplanned co-primary outcomes were anxiety and depression scales 12 months after disclosure. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-three adults (mean age 58.3, range 33-86 years, 71% female, 23% African American) were randomly assigned to the SP-GC protocol (n = 115), CP-GC protocol (n = 116), or CP-MD protocol (n = 112). Mean postdisclosure scores on all outcomes were well below cut-offs for clinical concern across protocols. Comparing CP-GC with SP-GC, the 97.5% upper confidence limits at 12 months after disclosure on co-primary outcomes of anxiety and depression ranged from a difference of 1.2 to 2.0 in means (all P < .001 on noninferiority tests), establishing noninferiority for condensed protocols. Results were similar between European Americans and African Americans. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the safety of condensed protocols for APOE disclosure for those free of severe anxiety or depression who are actively seeking such information.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations are frequently demonstrated in both high-risk pancreatic cancer screening and pancreatic cancer cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is due to a genetic predisposition, including the breast and ovarian cancer syndrome germline mutations BRCA1 and BRCA2. Knowledge of specific genetic mutations predisposing to PDAC may enable risk stratification, early detection, and the development of effective screening and surveillance programs. In the current study, the authors attempted to determine the diagnostic yield of testing for BRCA1/2 germline mutations in a PDAC screening cohort and a PDAC cohort referred for genetic testing. METHODS: Patients in a high-risk PDAC prevention and genetics program or those with a personal history of PDAC who were referred for genetic evaluation underwent testing for BRCA1/2 germline mutations. Clinical BRCA1/2 genetic testing included testing for the 3 Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutations or BRCA1/2 comprehensive testing. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients without PDAC underwent BRCA1/2 testing at the study institution. Genetic testing identified 7 patients who were BRCA1/2 carriers for a yield of 18.9%. Six patients carried Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutations (3 with BRCA1 and 3 with BRCA2), and 1 patient was found to have a BRCA2 mutation on comprehensive testing. Thirty-two patients with PDAC underwent BRCA1/2 genetic testing. Five patients had Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutations (2 with BRCA1 and 3 with BRCA2), and 2 patients were found to have BRCA2 mutations on comprehensive testing. The diagnostic yield was 7 of 32 patients (21.9%). CONCLUSIONS: BRCA1/2 testing is useful in PDAC risk stratification and alters risk assignment and screening recommendations for mutation-positive patients and their families. Clinical BRCA1/2 testing should be considered in patients of Ashkenazi Jewish descent with a personal history or family history of PDAC, even in the absence of a family history of breast and ovarian cancer.

A survey of UK public interest in internet-based personal genome testing.

BACKGROUND: In view of the increasing availability of commercial internet-based Personal Genome Testing (PGT), this study aimed to explore the reasons why people would consider taking such a test and how they would use the genetic risk information provided. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A self-completion questionnaire assessing public awareness and interest in PGT and motivational reasons for undergoing PGT was completed by 4,050 unselected adult volunteers from the UK-based TwinsUK register, aged 17 to 91 (response rate 62%). Only 13% of respondents were aware of the existence of PGT. After reading a brief summary about PGT, one in twenty participants (5%) were potentially interested at current prices (£250), however this proportion rose to half (50%) if the test was free of charge. Nearly all respondents who were interested in free PGT reported they would take the test to encourage them to adopt a healthier lifestyle if found to be at high genetic risk of a disease (93%). Around 4 in 5 respondents would have the test to convey genetic risk information to their children and a similar proportion felt that having a PGT would enable their doctor to monitor their health more closely. A TwinsUK research focus group also indicated that consumers would consult their GP to help interpret results of PGT. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This hypothetical study suggests that increasing publicity and decreasing costs of PGT may lead to increased uptake, driven in part by the general public's desire to monitor and improve their health. Although the future extent of the clinical utility of PGT is currently unknown, it is crucial that consumers are well informed about the current limitations of PGT. Our results suggest that health professionals will inevitably be required to respond to individuals who have undergone PGT. This has implications for health service providers regarding both cost and time.