Utilization and Outcomes of Multigene Panel Testing in Patients With Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend germline genetic testing (GT) for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aims to evaluate the utilization and outcomes of multigene panel GT in patients with PDAC. METHODS: This retrospective, multisite study included patients with PDAC diagnosed between May 2018 and August 2020 at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. Discussion, uptake, and outcomes of GT were compared before (May 1, 2018-May 1, 2019) and after (August 1, 2019-August 1, 2020) the guideline update, accounting for a transition period. RESULTS: The study identified 533 patients with PDAC, with 321 (60.2%) preguideline and 212 (39.8%) postguideline. Patient characteristics did not differ between the preguideline and postguideline periods. GT was discussed in 34.3% (110 of 321) of preguideline and 39.6% (84 of 212) of postguideline patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.80]) and subsequently performed in 80.9% (89 of 110) of preguideline and 75.0% (63 of 84) of postguideline patients (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.61]). Of 152 tested patients, 26 (17.1%) had a pathogenic variant (PV), of whom 17 (11.2%; 17 of 152) were PDAC-associated. Over the entire study period, GT was more likely in younger patients (65 v 70 years; P < .001), those seen by a medical oncologist (82.9% v 69.0%; P < .001), and those surviving more than 12 months from diagnosis (70.4% v 43.4%; P < .001). Demographics and personal/family cancer history were comparable between patients with and without a PDAC PV. CONCLUSION: GT remains underutilized despite National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. Given the poor prognosis of PDAC and potential implications of GT, efforts to increase utilization are needed to provide surveillance and support to both patients with PDAC and at-risk family members.

Association of serum IgG4 and disease outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Background: The etiology of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is multifactorial and thought to be influenced by inappropriate activation of the gut mucosal immune system. As the only immunoglobulin G (IgG) subclass unable to activate the classical complement cascade, the role of IgG4 in IBD pathophysiology as an immunomodulator is controversial. This study aimed to determine the association of low, normal and high IgG4 levels with the outcomes of IBD patients. Methods: This was a retrospective study of a multisite tertiary care center database evaluating patients with IBD who had an IgG4 level drawn between 2014 and 2021. Subjects were divided into low, normal, and high IgG4 level groups for evaluation of demographic and clinical indicators of IBD activity and severity. Results: Of 284 patients with IBD, 22 had low (7.7%), 16 high (5.6%), and 246 (86.6%) normal IgG4 levels. There was no difference in IBD subtype, mean age, age at IBD diagnosis, or smoking between the 3 groups. There was no difference in number of hospitalizations (P=0.20), C-reactive protein levels, need for intestinal resection (P=0.85), or presence of primary sclerosing cholangitis (P=0.15), pancreatitis (P=0.70), or perianal disease (P=0.68) between the groups. Significantly more patients in the low IgG4 group had previous exposure to vedolizumab compared to the other groups and more patients in the low IgG4 group received vedolizumab (P=0.04), azathioprine (P=0.04) and prednisone (P=0.03) during the 5-year follow up. Conclusion: In this study, a low serum IgG4 level was associated with higher rates of vedolizumab, azathioprine, and steroid use.

Identification of individuals at high-risk for pancreatic cancer using a digital patient-input tool combining family cancer history screening and new-onset diabetes.

Capturing family history might be a valuable tool for identification of individuals at increased risk of pancreatic cancer, which would allow enrollment into pancreatic surveillance programs. In addition, weight loss and concurrent new-onset diabetes may be utilized as an early marker for pancreatic cancer. This study evaluates the yield of combining family history and the Enriching New-Onset Diabetes for Pancreatic Cancer (ENDPAC) model to identify individuals who could benefit from pancreatic surveillance. A novel questionnaire and digital input tool was created that combined questions on family cancer history and criteria of the ENDPAC model. Individuals meeting ENDPAC criteria were enrolled directly in the high-risk pancreatic clinic. Individuals who met the criteria for a significant family history of cancer were offered referral to a genetic counselor. The questionnaire was completed by 453 patients. Of those, 25.8% (117/453) had significant familial risk factors. Eighteen individuals (15.4%) completed genetic testing previously, of whom five had a pathogenic variant. Thirty-four (29.9%) out of 117 individuals with a strong family history - flagged by the questionnaire - underwent genetic testing. Four (11.8%) of these patients harbored a pathogenic variant. Additionally, through cascade family testing, two siblings were found to carry pathogenic variants. Four (0.9%) of the 453 patients matched ENDPAC criteria. Two were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and the others were enrolled in the surveillance program. In conclusion, identification of high-risk individuals for pancreatic cancer can be achieved by combining family history screening and the ENDPAC model to facilitate referral to genetic counseling and high-risk clinics.

Community engaged research to measure the impact of COVID-19 on vulnerable community member's well-being and health : A mixed methods approach.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing income inequality and health disparities in the United States (US). The objective of this study was to conduct timely, community-engaged research to understand the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on historically under-resourced communities with the goal of improving health equity. The initiative focused on priorities identified by Community Health Needs Assessments (CHNA) conducted every 3 years per Federal funding requirements. These were access to healthcare, maternal/child health, obesity/food insecurity/physical activity, and mental health/addiction. METHODS: In the first three quarters of 2021, we developed and employed mixed methods in three simultaneous phases of data collection. In phase 1, we used purposive sampling to identify key informants from multiple stakeholder groups and conducted semi-structured interviews. In phase 2, we held focus groups with community members from historically marginalized demographics. In phase 3, we developed a survey using validated scales and distributed it to diverse communities residing in the geographic areas of our healthcare system across four states. CONCLUSION: Healthcare systems may use the methodology outlined in this paper to conduct responsive community engagement during periods of instability and/or crisis and to address health equity issues. The results can inform sustainable approaches to collaborate with communities to build resilience and prepare for future crises.

Patient uptake of updated genetic testing following uninformative BRCA1 and BRCA2 results.

Advances have dated the genetic testing initially offered to evaluate for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risks. Previous research has demonstrated that many patients have not updated testing. This study reviewed the incidence of additional analysis after an uninformative BRCA1/2 result and offered updated testing with limited barriers to those who had not completed. After viewing an educational video and providing informed consent, eligible patients were mailed a saliva collection kit to complete an 84-gene hereditary cancer panel at no personal cost. A total of 704 patients had completed BRCA1/2 only testing between 2001 and 2020. Fifteen percent (N = 102) of the 671 patients with an uninformative BRCA1/2 result had already completed expanded testing. Most, 74 of 102 (73%), had been rereferred to medical genetics during a clinical visit related to cancer care. Those who had already completed additional testing were more likely to have a personal history of cancer (92% vs. 79%, p = 0.002) and live locally (p = 0.032). Invitation to complete updated testing through this study was sent to 372 people, and 116 (31%) consented to participate. For 142 of the 256 who did not proceed with testing through the study, proof of receipt of research information was available. In total, 22 pathogenic variants were reported in 21 of the 226 patients with updated testing from before and including our study: ATM (4), CHEK2 (4), LZTR1 (1), MUTYH (3), NBN (1), NF1 (1), NTHL1 (1), PALB2 (4), PMS2 (1), RAD50 (1), and SPINK1 (1). Many potential barriers of retesting were eliminated by removing personal costs or travel requirements. Still, only about 30% of patients agreed to participate, and a significant portion elected not to proceed. Future research could focus on the discovery of other factors that dissuade patients and what measures may better inform them on potential benefits.

Key Stakeholder Perspectives of Community Engagement Efforts and the Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionally affected historically marginalized populations and their access to resources and healthcare. In times of crisis, authentic community engagement is more important than ever. This study was Phase 1 of a larger 3-phase study to conduct timely community-engaged research with community members to understand the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on historically underserved communities. The objective of this work was to conduct key informant (KI) interviews (1) to understand community organizations perspectives about the role that large academic health centers play as they interface with community organizations to support their work, (2) to leverage KI's expertise to identify needs and assets within the community, and (3) to inform both Phase 2 (focus group qualitative research) and Phase 3 (survey) of the broader study. METHODS: A total of 24 key informants were identified through purposeful sampling and one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted across 4 states using video conferencing. RESULTS: Barriers to access and lack of transparency were highlighted as major issues requiring reform-in particular, aggressive billing practices and insurance barriers exacerbated local distrust of medical institutions. KIs recognized the health institution's support for testing and vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic, but noted other significant gaps in care, especially regarding mental health support. Although communication with the health institution was consistent for some KIs, others experienced unsustained communication efforts that hindered cooperation and relationship building. CONCLUSIONS: Leaders in the community as key stakeholders can provide unique insights into the challenges and potential solutions required to promote health equity, and foster understanding between local communities and healthcare institutions.

Comparison of a Focused Family Cancer History Questionnaire to Family History Documentation in the Electronic Medical Record.

INTRODUCTION: Family health history can be a valuable indicator of risk to develop certain cancers. Unfortunately, patient self-reported family history often contains inaccuracies, which might change recommendations for cancer screening. We endeavored to understand the difference between a patient's self-reported family history and their electronic medical record (EMR) family history. One aim of this study was to determine if family history information contained in the EMR differs from patient-reported family history collected using a focused questionnaire. METHODS: We created the Hereditary Cancer Questionnaire (HCQ) based on current guidelines and distributed to 314 patients in the Department of Family Medicine waiting room June 20 to August 1, 2018. The survey queried patients about specific cancers within their biological family to assess their risk of an inherited cancer syndrome. We used the questionnaire responses as a baseline when comparing family histories in the medical record. RESULTS: Agreement between the EMR and the questionnaire data decreased as the patients' risk for familial cancer increased. Meaning that the more significant a patient's family cancer history, the less likely it was to be recorded accurately and consistently in the EMR. Patients with low-risk levels, or fewer instances of cancer in the family, had more consistencies between the EMR and the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Given that physicians often make recommendations on incomplete information that is in the EMR, patients might not receive individualized preventive care based on a more complete family cancer history. This is especially true for individuals with more complicated and significant family history of cancer. An improved method of collecting family history, including increasing patient engagement, may help to decrease this disparity.

Patients' views on variants of uncertain significance across indications.

As genomic sequencing expands into more areas of patient care, an increasing number of patients learn of the variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) that they carry. Understanding the potential psychosocial consequences of the disclosure of a VUS can help inform pre- and post-test counseling discussions. Medical uncertainty in general elicits a variety of responses from patients, particularly in the growing field of medical genetics and genomics. It is important to consider patients' responses to the ambiguous nature of VUSs across different indications and situational contexts. Genetic counselors and other providers ordering genetic testing should be prepared for the possibility of their patients' misinterpretation of such results. Pre-test counseling should include a discussion of the possibility of VUSs and what it would mean for the patient's care and its potential psychosocial impacts. When a VUS is found, post-test counseling should include additional education and a discussion of the variant's implications and medical management recommendations based on the results. These discussions may help temper subjective interpretations, unrealistic views, and decisional regret.

Patients with pathogenic variants for breast cancer other than BRCA1 and BRCA2: qualitative interviews about health care experiences.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes has been revolutionized by next-generation sequencing, which allows for simultaneous review of numerous genes. Multigene panels are regularly offered to patients because of their scope and decreased cost and turnaround time. However, many genes included on larger panels have not been studied as extensively as BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2), and their clinical effects are often not as well established. METHODS: We identified patients who received positive test results for pathogenic variants of breast cancer genes from January 2012 through May 2018. We mailed a survey and conducted qualitative interviews to explore the personal and health care experiences of patients with pathogenic variants of BRCA1/2 and patients with "other" (ie, non-BRCA1/2 or PALB2; PTEN; ATM; TP53; NBM, RAD51C; MSH6) variants. We compared the experiences of these patients. RESULTS: Fifty-nine out of 128 individuals responded to the survey (46%). Thirty-two patients had BRCA1/2 variants, and 27 had other variants. (49 women and 10 men; median [range] age, 63 [34-87] years). We interviewed 21 patients (17 women and 4 men; median [range] age, 59.6 [34-82] years). Of the interview participants, ten patients had BRCA1/2 variants, and 11 had non-BRCA1/2 variants. Patients reported receiving poor information about their genetic test results, and they often educated their physicians about their results. Some patients believed that they had been ignored or "brushed off" by health care professionals because non-BRCA1/2 genes are less understood outside the genetics research community. Patients with BRCA1/2 variants had similar problems with health care providers, despite increased awareness and established guidelines about BRCA1/2. CONCLUSIONS: Research is required to understand the clinical significance and proper management of diseases attributable to newly characterized hereditary cancer genes. Additional evaluation of patient and provider education should be at the forefront of efforts to improve patient care.

Familial Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease: Case report and role of genetic counseling in post mortem testing.

Here we present a case of an asymptomatic 53-year-old woman who sought genetic testing for Familial Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (fCJD) after learning that her mother had fCJD. The patient's mother had a sudden onset of memory problems and rapidly deteriorating mental faculties in her late 70s, which led to difficulties ambulating, progressive non-fluent aphasia, dysphagia and death within ∼1 y of symptom onset. The cause of death was reported as "rapid onset dementia." The patient's family, unhappy with the vague diagnosis, researched prion disorders online and aggressively pursued causation and submitted frozen brain tissue from the mother to the National Prion Disease Surveillance Center, where testing revealed a previously described 5-octapeptide repeat insertion (5-OPRI) in the prion protein gene (PRNP) that is known to cause fCJD. The family had additional questions about the implications of this result and thus independently sought out genetic counseling. While rare, fCJD is likely underdiagnosed due to clinical heterogeneity, rapid onset, early non-specific symptomatology, and overlap in the differential diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and Lewy body dementias. When fCJD is identified, a multidisciplinary approach to return of results that includes the affected patient's provider, genetics professionals, and mental health professionals is key to the care of the family. We present an example case which discusses the psychosocial issues encountered and the role of genetic counseling in presymptomatic testing for incurable neurodegenerative conditions. Ordering physicians should be aware of the basic issues surrounding presymptomatic genetic testing and identify local genetic counseling resources for their patients.

Was it worth it? Patients' perspectives on the perceived value of genomic-based individualized medicine.

The value of genomic sequencing is often understood in terms of its ability to affect diagnosis or treatment. In these terms, successes occur only in a minority of cases. This paper presents views from patients who had exome sequencing done clinically to explore how they perceive the utility of genomic medicine. The authors used semi-structured, qualitative interviews in order to study patients' attitudes toward genomic sequencing in oncology and rare-disease settings. Participants from 37 cases were interviewed. In terms of the testing's key values-regardless of having received what clinicians described as meaningful results-participants expressed four qualities that are separate from traditional views of clinical utility: Participants felt they had been empowered over their own health. They felt they had contributed altruistically to the progress of genomic technology in medicine. They felt their suffering had been legitimated. They also felt a sense of closure, having done everything they could. Patients expressed overwhelmingly positive attitudes toward sequencing. Their rationale was not solely based on the results' clinical utility. It is important for clinicians to understand this non-medical reasoning as it pertains to patient decision-making and informed consent.

Patients' views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing.

This article characterizes the opinions of patients and family members of patients undergoing clinical genomic-based testing regarding the return of incidental findings from these tests. Over sixteen months, we conducted 55 in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their preferences regarding which types of results they would like returned to them. Responses indicate a diversity of attitudes toward the return of incidental findings and a diversity of justifications for those attitudes. The majority of participants also described an imperative to include the patient in deciding which results to return rather than having universal, predetermined rules governing results disclosure. The results demonstrate the importance of a patient centered-approach to returning incidental findings.