Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Prostate Cancer Screening in Carriers of Pathogenic Germline Mutations: Interim Results from the Initial Screening Round of the Prostate Cancer Genetic Risk Evaluation and Screening Study.

BACKGROUND: The risk of early-onset and clinically aggressive prostate cancer is elevated in carriers of certain rare pathogenic germline mutations. The utility of augmenting traditional prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening measures with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in this population is not yet known. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate MRI-based screening in comparison with traditional PSA-based screening among individuals at an elevated genetic risk for prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Male germline carriers of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in any of 19 prostate cancer risk genes between the ages of 35 and 74 yr with no prior history of prostate cancer were recruited. Intervention Enrolled participants underwent screening with annual PSA, digital rectal examination (DRE), and triennial multiparametric MRI. Individuals with abnormal DRE, elevated age-adjusted PSA (>1.5 ng/ml for 35-49 yr, >2.0 ng/ml for 50-54 yr, and >3.0 ng/ml for 55-74 yr), or suspicious multiparametric MRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] ≥3 lesion) were offered prostate biopsy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Endpoints were diagnosis of any and clinically significant prostate cancer, and alternative screening strategies were compared by a decision curve analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: To date, 101 males have completed the first round of screening. The greatest proportion of participants are carriers of BRCA2 (n = 44), BRCA1 (n = 35), and ATM (n = 7) variants. Twenty-one have undergone biopsy, resulting in the detection of nine cases of cancer (seven clinically significant). For the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, abnormal MRI (PI-RADS ≥3) demonstrated 100% sensitivity (7/7) with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, whereas PSA-based screening alone had 57% (4/7) sensitivity with an NPV of 73%. Of six screening strategies evaluated in the decision curve analysis, MRI-based screening alone achieved superior net benefit at all threshold probabilities compared with PSA screening-detecting one additional cancer case per 7.5 patients, while avoiding more unnecessary biopsies at the same threshold probability. CONCLUSIONS: Disease prevalence is high among carriers of prostate cancer-associated pathogenic germline mutations. Early results suggest that MRI-based screening enhances early detection of clinically significant disease beyond PSA screening alone. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we present the interim results from the PROGRESS prostate cancer screening trial. We found that in certain germline carriers of prostate cancer risk mutations, magnetic resonance imaging-based screening enhances detection of prostate cancer while reducing biopsies triggered, in comparison with traditional prostate-specific antigen screening strategies.

Germline cancer susceptibility in individuals with melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have estimated a small number of individuals with melanoma (2%-2.5%) have germline cancer predisposition, yet a recent twin study suggested melanoma has the highest hereditability among cancers. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of hereditary melanoma and characterize the spectrum of cancer predisposition genes that may increase the risk of melanoma. METHODS: Four hundred individuals with melanoma and personal or family history of cancers underwent germline testing of >80 cancer predisposition genes. Comparative analysis of germline data was performed on 3 additional oncologic and dermatologic data sets. RESULTS: Germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants were identified in 15.3% (61) individuals with melanoma. Most variants (41, 67%) involved genes considered unrelated to melanoma (BLM, BRIP1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, PMS2, RAD51C). A third (20, 33%) were in genes previously associated with familial melanoma (BAP1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, MITF, TP53). Nearly half (30, 46.9%) of P/LP variants were in homologous repair deficiency genes. Validation cohorts demonstrated P/LP rates of 10.6% from an unselected oncologic cohort, 15.8% from a selected commercial testing cohort, and 14.5% from a highly selected dermatologic study. LIMITATIONS: Cohorts with varying degrees of selection, some retrospective. CONCLUSION: Germline predisposition in individuals with melanoma is common, with clinically actionable findings diagnosed in 10.6% to 15.8%.

Impact of an Expanded Definition of Family History on Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite family history being an established risk factor for prostate cancer, the role of a broader definition of family history inclusive of not just prostate cancer but other genetically related malignancies has not been investigated in the active surveillance population. Here, we evaluate the impact of an expanded definition of family history on active surveillance outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer at Massachusetts General Hospital from 1997-2019 with detailed data available on family cancer history were identified. Primary outcome was biopsy progression-free survival, and secondary outcomes were treatment-free survival, adverse pathological features at prostatectomy, and biochemical recurrence after treatment. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. RESULTS: Among 855 evaluable patients, 300 (35.1%) patients had any family history of prostate cancer, and 95 (11.1%) had a family history of related malignancies suggestive of a hereditary cancer syndrome. Family history of prostate cancer alone was not associated with biopsy progression, whereas family history suggestive of a hereditary cancer syndrome was associated with a significantly increased risk of biopsy progression (HR 1.43, 95%CI 1.01-2.02), independent of other known clinicopathological risk factors in multivariable analysis. Similarly, family history suggestive of a hereditary cancer syndrome was associated with significantly lower treatment-free survival (HR 1.58, 95%CI 1.14-2.18) in multivariable analysis. No significant association was found between family history and adverse features on surgical pathology or biochemical recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: An expanded family history suggestive of a hereditary cancer syndrome is an independent predictor of biopsy progression during active surveillance. Men with such a family history may still be offered active surveillance but should be counseled regarding the higher risk of disease progression.

Motivation and family communication in hereditary prostate cancer genetic testing: Survey of patients from a US tertiary medical center.

Identification of a hereditary prostate cancer in an affected individual can guide treatment and may also impact cancer screening and surveillance for patients and their relatives. This study aimed to determine the factors that are associated with the decision-making process of individuals with prostate cancer regarding whether to pursue genetic testing as well as how, why, and with whom genetic test results are shared. We surveyed 113 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who received cancer genetic counseling through a United States tertiary medical center, inquiring about genetic testing motivations and family communication about results. Among those who pursued genetic testing, (1) learning about my family's possible cancer risk (98%), (2) learning information that may guide cancer treatment (93%), and (3) learning if I am at risk for future cancers (92%) were most frequently identified as slightly or very important factors in their decision. Participants shared their genetic test results in a higher proportion to male first-degree relatives than female first-degree relatives; however, no significant difference was found (p = 0.103). Our study may suggest sex differences related to family communication about genetic testing results. Such findings indicate a critical need for genetic counselors to clearly communicate the impact of genetic test results on both male and female relatives. Further research on motivation and family communication about genetic test results in diverse cohorts is needed.

New Insights into Melanoma Tumor Syndromes.

Melanoma tumor syndromes (MTS) represent an important minority of familial melanoma cases. In these patients, the accumulation of sequence alterations in essential genes may prelude the risk of internal malignancies, in addition to melanoma. Although several host and environmental factors have been implicated in familial melanoma, the exact mechanisms of cancer predisposition-particularly in the context of mixed cancer syndromes-still remain unclear. In this paper, we review new insights into MTS and elucidate recent efforts that guide individualized prognostication and treatment for these diseases in the past quarter century.

Toward a better understanding of the experience of patients with moderate penetrance breast cancer gene pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants: A focus on ATM and CHEK2.

This study explored the experiences of patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in the moderate penetrance breast cancer genes, ATM and CHEK2. There were 139 eligible female patients who received genetic counseling at the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Cancer Risk Assessment (MGH CCRA) from 2014 to 2018. They were sent surveys assessing their understanding of the clinical significance of their genetic test results, adherence to medical management recommendations, dissemination of genetic test results to relatives, and informational resource needs. In total, 66 surveys were returned with a response rate of 47.5%. Most participants reported understanding the clinical implications of their genetic test results and adhering to medical management recommendations. Although 20.3% found it upsetting, nearly all participants shared their genetic test results with relatives. When asked about resource needs, 54.5% reported seeking out additional resources. Our ATM/CHEK2 sample appears to have a good understanding of the personal and familial implications of their genetic test results but may benefit from additional resources. It is unclear whether similar results would be found in patients who do not receive genetic counseling from a board-certified genetic counselor, and this should be examined. This study is one of the first to assess the experiences and needs of the moderate risk population.

Telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk: Patient predictors of differential outcomes.

PURPOSE: Telegenetics has become the predominant mode of cancer genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify potential patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic genetic counseling. METHODS: We analyzed post-counseling (pre-result disclosure) follow-up data from a randomized noninferiority trial of a telephone genetic counseling versus usual care genetic counseling. Among 669 randomized participants, 600 completed pre-test counseling and 568 completed a 2-week follow-up assessment before receiving test results. In this analysis, we focused on genetic counseling outcomes (knowledge, decisional conflict, and distress). In multivariate models controlling for bivariate predictors of these outcomes, we tested our a priori hypotheses that pre-counseling numeracy, perceived stress, and race/ethnicity would moderate the outcomes of telephone genetic counseling versus usual care. RESULTS: Only numeracy significantly moderated associations between mode of genetic counseling and outcomes. Higher numeracy was associated with higher post-counseling knowledge following telephone genetic counseling (p < 0.001), but not usual care (p = 0.450). Higher numeracy was also associated with lower distress following telephone genetic counseling (p = 0.009) but not usual care (p = 0.16). Neither perceived stress nor race/ethnicity exhibited differential impacts on telephone genetic counseling versus usual care (ps > 0.20). CONCLUSION: Although high numeracy was associated with higher levels of knowledge following telegenetic counseling, we did not identify any clinically significant patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic counseling. These results lend further confidence to the broad use of telegenetics.

Cancer risks associated with the germline MITF(E318K) variant.

The MITF(E318K) variant confers moderate risk for cutaneous melanoma. While there are small studies suggesting that this risk is associated with other malignancies (e.g. renal cell carcinoma), little is known about the role of this variant in specifying risk for other cancers. In this study, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published data as a backdrop to a whole-exome sequence(WES)-based characterization of MITF(E318K) risk for various cancers in sporadic samples from the TCGA and several genetically-enriched patient cohorts. We found minimal evidence of MITF(E318K)'s contribution to non-melanoma cancer risk among individuals with low inherited risks of melanoma (OR 1.168; 95% CI 0.78-1.74; p = 0.454), suggesting that earlier reports of an association between this variant and other malignancies may be related to shared environmental or polygenic risk factors rather than MITF(E318K). Interestingly, an association was observed with uterine carcinosarcoma, (OR 9.24; 95% CI 2.08-37.17; p = 0.024), which was not previously described. While more research needs to be completed, this study will help update cancer screening recommendations for patients with the MITF(E318K) variant.

Genotypic and Phenotypic Features of BAP1 Cancer Syndrome: A Report of 8 New Families and Review of Cases in the Literature.

Importance: Patients with germline mutations in BAP1 may develop several flesh-colored melanocytic BAP1-mutated atypical intradermal tumors (MBAITs). These tumors generally develop earlier than other BAP1-associated tumors, highlighting an important role for dermatologists in identifying and screening patients with a history suggestive of a germline mutation. Objective: To describe 8 new families with germline mutations in BAP1 and provide a comprehensive review of reported cases. Design, Settings and Participants: Patients were identified in an outpatient dermatology clinical setting over a 6-month period (10 mutation carriers from 8 families) and through a literature review using PubMed (205 patients). Exposures: Mutations were identified through next-generation sequencing of saliva or blood samples, and RNA was extracted from fibroblasts cultured from a patient with an intronic variant to determine the impact of the mutation on the coding sequence. Main Outcomes and Measures: All 215 patients were assessed for personal and/or family history and genotype. These findings were compiled and assessed for any association between genotype and phenotype. Results: Overall, this study included 215 patients (108 women, 91 men, and 16 gender unspecified; median [range] age, 46.5 [10.0-79.0] years). Nine of the 10 patients who were identified in the outpatient dermatology setting were found to have MBAITs on clinical examination. Forty of 53 patients (75%) identified in the literature review who underwent total-body skin examinations (TBSE) were found to have MBAITs, suggesting a high penetrance in patients who have undergone TBSE. The most prevalent malignancies among BAP1 mutation carriers were uveal melanoma (n = 60 [28%]), mesothelioma (n = 48 [22%]), cutaneous melanoma (n = 38 [18%]), and renal cell carcinoma (n = 20 [9%]). A total of 71 unique mutations in BAP1 have been reported. Conclusions and Relevance: Our results indicate that germline mutations in both coding and noncoding regions throughout the BAP1 gene can impair protein function, leading to an increased risk for several associated malignancies. Four of the 8 probands we present had no history of BAP1-associated malignancies and were assessed for germline mutations when found to have MBAITs on dermatologic examination. Dermatologists can identify patients with a high likelihood of the BAP1 cancer syndrome through personal and family history and TBSE for the presence of possible MBAITs.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A 12-Month Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Telephone delivery of genetic counseling is an alternative to in-person genetic counseling because it may extend the reach of genetic counseling. Previous reports have established the noninferiority of telephone counseling on short-term psychosocial and decision-making outcomes. Here we examine the long-term impact of telephone counseling (TC) vs in-person counseling (usual care [UC]). METHODS: We recruited high-risk women for a noninferiority trial comparing TC with UC. Of 1057 potentially eligible women, 669 were randomly assigned to TC (n = 335) or UC (n = 334), and 512 completed the 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were patient-reported satisfaction with genetic testing decision, distress, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were uptake of cancer risk management strategies. RESULTS: TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. Satisfaction with decision (d = 0.13, lower bound of 97.5% confidence interval [CI] = -0.34) did not cross its one-point noninferiority limit, cancer-specific distress (d = -2.10, upper bound of 97.5% CI = -0.07) did not cross its four-point noninferiority limit, and genetic testing distress (d = -0.27, upper bound of 97.5% CI = 1.46), physical function (d = 0.44, lower bound of 97.5% CI = -0.91) and mental function (d = -0.04, lower bound of 97.5% CI = -1.44) did not cross their 2.5-point noninferiority limit. Bivariate analyses showed no differences in risk-reducing mastectomy or oophorectomy across groups; however, when combined, TC had significantly more risk-reducing surgeries than UC (17.8% vs 10.5%; χ2 = 4.43, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support telephone delivery of genetic counseling to extend the accessibility of this service without long-term adverse outcomes.

Patient and genetic counselor perceptions of in-person versus telephone genetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer.

Telephone genetic counseling (TC) for high-risk women interested in BRCA1/2 testing has been shown to yield positive outcomes comparable to usual care (UC; in-person) genetic counseling. However, little is known about how genetic counselors perceive the delivery of these alternate forms of genetic counseling. As part of a randomized trial of TC versus UC, genetic counselors completed a 5-item genetic counselor process questionnaire (GCQ) assessing key elements of pre-test sessions (information delivery, emotional support, addressing questions and concerns, tailoring of session, and facilitation of decision-making) with the 479 female participants (TC, N = 236; UC, N = 243). The GCQ scores did not differ for TC vs. UC sessions (t (477) = 0.11, p = 0.910). However, multivariate analysis showed that participant race/ethnicity significantly predicted genetic counselor perceptions (ß = 0.172, p < 0.001) in that the GCQ scores were lower for minorities in TC and UC. Exploratory analyses suggested that GCQ scores may be associated with patient preference for UC versus TC (t (79) = 2.21, p = 0.030). Additionally, we found that genetic counselor ratings of session effectiveness were generally concordant with patient perceptions of the session. These data indicate that genetic counselors perceive that key components of TC can be delivered as effectively as UC, and that these elements may contribute to specific aspects of patient satisfaction. However, undefined process differences may be present which account for lower counselor perceptions about the effectiveness of their sessions with minority women (i.e., those other than non-Hispanic Whites). We discuss other potential clinical and research implications of our findings.

Patient Perceptions of Telephone vs. In-Person BRCA1/BRCA2 Genetic Counseling.

Telephone genetic counseling (TC) for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer risk has been associated with positive outcomes in high risk women. However, little is known about how patients perceive TC. As part of a randomized trial of TC versus usual care (UC; in-person genetic counseling), we compared high risk women's perceptions of: (1) overall satisfaction with genetic counseling; (2) convenience; (3) attentiveness during the session; (4) counselor effectiveness in providing support; and (5) counselor ability to recognize emotional responses during the session. Among the 554 participants (TC, N = 272; UC, N = 282), delivery mode was not associated with self-reported satisfaction. However, TC participants found counseling significantly more convenient than UC participants (OR = 4.78, 95 % CI = 3.32, 6.89) while also perceiving lower levels of support (OR = 0.56, 95 % CI = 0.40-0.80) and emotional recognition (OR = 0.53, 95 % CI = 0.37-0.76). In exploratory analyses, we found that non-Hispanic white participants reported higher counselor support in UC than in TC (69.4 % vs. 52.8 %; OR = 3.06, 95 % CI = 1.39-6.74), while minority women perceived less support in UC vs. TC (58.3 % vs. 38.7 %; OR = 0.80, 95 % CI = 0.39-1.65). We discuss potential research and practice implications of these findings which may further improve the effectiveness and utilization of TC.

Disparities in uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a randomized trial of telephone counseling.

PURPOSE: As genetic counseling and testing become more fully integrated into clinical care, alternative delivery models are increasingly prominent. This study examines predictors of genetic testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer among high-risk women in a randomized trial of in-person versus telephone-based genetic counseling. METHODS: Methods include multivariable logistic regression and interaction analyses. RESULTS: Of the 669 participants, 600 completed counseling and 523 received test results. As previously reported, participants randomized to telephone counseling were significantly less likely to be tested. In intention-to-treat analyses, completion of counseling and testing was associated with: race/ethnicity (odds ratio (OR) = 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-3.20), perceived stress (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.98), knowledge (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02-1.23), and randomization group (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.01-2.16). Further, race/ethnicity moderated the association between randomization group and testing; minority women receiving telephone counseling were least likely to complete testing. CONCLUSION: Evidence for logistical and communication-based explanations for this interaction is presented. The overall increased access made possible with telephone genetic counseling should be considered in light of the possibility that this may also lead to lower rates of testing among high-risk minority women. Additional care should be taken to assess and address potential barriers when services are delivered by telephone.Genet Med 17 6, 467-475.

Intentions for risk-reducing surgery among high-risk women referred for BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic counseling.

OBJECTIVE: Genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility is now part of routine clinical practice. Although rates of risk-reducing surgery following genetic testing have been increasing, little is known about attitudes toward risk-reducing surgery in women prior to genetic counseling and testing. This study examines correlates of patient intentions to undergo risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing oophorectomy (RRO). METHODS: Participants were 696 women, ages 21-85, who sought breast cancer gene 1 and 2 (BRCA1/2) genetic counseling and had at least a 10% risk of carrying a mutation. The sample included women who were affected with breast or ovarian cancer and unaffected women with a known familial BRCA1/2 mutation. Participants completed a precounseling telephone questionnaire. RESULTS: Prior to receiving genetic counseling, 23.3% of participants were considering RRM and 42.5% were considering RRO. Variables that were independently associated with RRM intentions were cancer-specific distress (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.03-1.26), perceived risk of breast cancer (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.05-1.28), education (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.03-2.99), and age (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.95-0.98). Predictors of RRO intentions were perceived risk for ovarian cancer (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.14-1.37), perceived risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.15-2.62), marital status (OR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.34-2.76), and age (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.00-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: Because precounseling intentions predict subsequent risk-reducing surgery decisions, this study identified patient factors associated with surgical intentions. These factors reinforce the critical role for pretest genetic counseling in communicating accurate risk estimates and management options, and addressing psychosocial concerns, to facilitate informed decision making regarding RRM and RRO.

Characteristics of individuals with breast cancer rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

BACKGROUND: Large rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2 occur in a small percentage (< 1%) of patients tested for hereditary breast (BC) and ovarian cancer. It is unclear what factors predict BRACAnalysis Large Rearrangement Test (BART) positivity. METHODS: Data from 6 centers were included in this analysis. Individuals with negative Comprehensive BRACAnalysis tested for BART were included. RESULTS: From 1300 individuals, 42 (3.2%) were BART positivity. Factors positively associated with BART positivity were Myriad score, first-degree relatives with BC, infiltrating BC with ductal carcinoma in situ, younger age at BC diagnosis, estrogen receptor-negative BC for both the first and second BC, and Latin American/Caribbean ethnicity. Presence of unilateral BC was inversely associated with BART positivity. Several analyses were performed on the variables available to find the model that best predicts for BART positivity. The BART predictive model, including first BC, ovarian cancer, primary maternal ancestry being Latin America/Caribbean, number of first-degree relatives with BC of 1 or more versus 0, and family history of prostate and pancreatic cancer, had good predictive ability with an area under the curve of 0.77. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors are significantly associated with BART positivity. Among them we have found that Latin American/Caribbean ancestry, Myriad score, first degree relatives with BC, younger age at BC diagnosis, estrogen receptor-negative status of BC, and infiltrating ductal carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ features are significantly associated with BART positivity. A BART predictive model may help in a clinical setting.

Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: Although guidelines recommend in-person counseling before BRCA1/BRCA2 gene testing, genetic counseling is increasingly offered by telephone. As genomic testing becomes more common, evaluating alternative delivery approaches becomes increasingly salient. We tested whether telephone delivery of BRCA1/2 genetic counseling was noninferior to in-person delivery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants (women age 21 to 85 years who did not have newly diagnosed or metastatic cancer and lived within a study site catchment area) were randomly assigned to usual care (UC; n = 334) or telephone counseling (TC; n = 335). UC participants received in-person pre- and post-test counseling; TC participants completed all counseling by telephone. Primary outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, decision conflict, distress, and quality of life; secondary outcomes were equivalence of BRCA1/2 test uptake and costs of delivering TC versus UC. RESULTS: TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. At 2 weeks after pretest counseling, knowledge (d = 0.03; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.61), perceived stress (d = -0.12; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.21), and satisfaction (d = -0.16; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.70) had group differences and confidence intervals that did not cross their 1-point noninferiority limits. Decision conflict (d = 1.1; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 3.3) and cancer distress (d = -1.6; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.27) did not cross their 4-point noninferiority limit. Results were comparable at 3 months. TC was not equivalent to UC on BRCA1/2 test uptake (UC, 90.1%; TC, 84.2%). TC yielded cost savings of $114 per patient. CONCLUSION: Genetic counseling can be effectively and efficiently delivered via telephone to increase access and decrease costs.