Selection of Germline Genetic Testing Panels in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To guide use of multigene panels for germline genetic testing for patients with cancer. METHODS: An ASCO Expert Panel convened to develop recommendations on the basis of a systematic review of guidelines, consensus statements, and studies of germline and somatic genetic testing. RESULTS: Fifty-two guidelines and consensus statements met eligibility criteria for the primary search; 14 studies were identified for Clinical Question 4. RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients should have a family history taken and recorded that includes details of cancers in first- and second-degree relatives and the patient's ethnicity. When more than one gene is relevant based on personal and/or family history, multigene panel testing should be offered. When considering what genes to include in the panel, the minimal panel should include the more strongly recommended genes from Table 1 and may include those less strongly recommended. A broader panel may be ordered when the potential benefits are clearly identified, and the potential harms from uncertain results should be mitigated. Patients who meet criteria for germline genetic testing should be offered germline testing regardless of results from tumor testing. Patients who would not normally be offered germline genetic testing based on personal and/or family history criteria but who have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified by tumor testing in a gene listed in Table 2 under the outlined circumstances should be offered germline testing.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines.

Evaluating attributes of a collaborative model of service delivery for hereditary cancer risk assessment.

The purpose of this nonrandomized study was to compare several attributes of hereditary cancer risk assessment using a collaborative model of service delivery. Arm 1 included patients seen in-person by a board-certified genetic counselor (CGC), Arm 2 included high-complexity triaged patients from distant sites who received telegenetics with a CGC, and Arm 3 included low-complexity triaged patients from distant sites who had in-person risk assessment with a locally placed genetic counselor extender (GCE). A total of 152 patients consented and 98 had complete data available for analysis (35 in Arm 1, 33 in Arm 2, and 30 in Arm 3). The three groups were comparable in age, ethnicity, education, employment, and cancer status. There was no significant difference in median wait time or distance traveled to receive care across all three arms. However, if patients in Arms 2 and 3 had to access the CGC in-person, they would have had to travel significantly further (p < 0.0001). The time spent in a session was significantly longer in Arm 3 with a GCE than with a CGC in-person or by telegenetics (p < 0.01). There was no difference in the number of essential elements covered in the appointment, change in cancer worry, or appointment satisfaction across all three arms, although the sample size was small. Employing a collaborative model of service delivery with GCEs and telegenetics is feasible, satisfactory to patients and reduces the distance patients travel to access hereditary cancer genetic services.

Adding a genetic counseling assistant improves efficiency of hereditary cancer genetic counseling without impacting patient experience.

Improving efficiency of genetic counseling can allow genetic counselors to see more patients, increasing access to this valuable service. However, the patient experience should be carefully considered as changes are made, so that quality is not sacrificed. The primary outcome of this study was time in session with a board-certified genetic counselor at baseline (T0), after the addition of a genetic counseling assistant (GCA) (T1). The secondary outcome was the patient experience, which was collected from an electronic survey sent three days after the genetic counseling session. A total of 689 appointments were evaluated over 12 months; 291 in T0 by two genetic counselors (Jan-June 2019), 398 in T1 by two genetic counselors (August 2019-Jan 2020). The overall genetic counseling median appointment time decreased by 10 min in T1 (p < 0.001), and the median amount of time spent on post-session activities by the two genetic counselors decreased by 15 min (p < 0.001). There was an increase in the average number of patients seen per FTE per month from 24.3 in T0 to 33.2 in T1. There was no difference in overall patient experience from T0 to T1 (p = 0.3). There was high patient satisfaction, including with the amount of time spent in a session during both time periods (p = 0.63). This study found decreased appointment time with the addition of a GCA in a single clinic without impacting patient experience.

Clinical genetic counselor experience in the adoption of telehealth in the United States and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the service delivery model (SDM) of clinical genetic counseling across the United States and Canada. A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 4,956 genetic counselors (GCs) from the American Board of Genetic Counselors and Canadian Association of Genetic Counselors mailing lists in August 2020 to assess the change in utilization of telehealth for clinical genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with prior to the pandemic. Data from 411 eligible clinical genetic counselors on GC attitudes and their experiences prior to and during the pandemic were collected and analyzed to explore the change in SDM, change in appointment characteristics, change in billing practices, GC perceived benefits and limitations of telehealth, and prediction of future trends in SDM in the post-pandemic era. The study showed the overall utilization of audiovisual and telephone encounters increased by 43.4% and 26.2%, respectively. The majority of respondents who provided audiovisual and telephone encounters reported increased patient volume compared with prior to the pandemic, with an average increase of 79.4% and 42.8%, respectively. There was an increase of 69.4% of GCs rendering genetic services from home offices. The percentage of participants who billed for telehealth services increased from 45.7% before the pandemic to 80.3% during the pandemic. The top GC perceived benefits of telehealth included safety for high-risk COVID patients (95.2%) and saved commute time for patients (94.7%). The top GC perceived limitations of telehealth included difficulty to conduct physician evaluation/coordinating with healthcare providers (HCP) (73.7%) and difficulty addressing non-English speaking patients (68.5%). Overall, 89.6% of GCs were satisfied with telehealth; however, 55.3% reported uncertainty whether the newly adopted SDM would continue after the pandemic subsides. Results from this study demonstrate the rapid adoption of telehealth for clinical genetic counseling services as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, an increase in billing for these services, and support the feasibility of telehealth for genetic counseling as a longer term solution to reach patients who are geographically distant.

An evaluation of memory and attention in BRCA mutation carriers using an online cognitive assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of various surgical, hormonal, and lifestyle factors on memory and attention in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. METHODS: BRCA mutation carriers enrolled in a longitudinal study were invited to complete an online brain health assessment tool designed to screen for cognitive deficits. Four measures of memory and executive attention were assessed individually, and an overall score was compiled adjusting for age. Exposures, including preventive surgery, hormone use, and lifestyle factors, were captured by questionnaire. Performance on each of the 5 subtasks was analyzed according to various exposures. Analysis of covariance was used to compare overall scores. RESULTS: In total, 880 women completed the online cognitive assessment. The average age of the participants was 54 years (range, 23-86 years). The mean overall test score was 54.4 (range, 0-93). The individual subtask scores declined with age at test completion (P < .0001) and increased with level of education (P ≤ .01). Women who underwent a preventive oophorectomy had a significantly higher overall score compared with women who did not undergo this surgery (55.5 vs 50.5; P = .01). Reconstructive breast surgery was also associated with a higher overall score (56.5 vs 52.3; P = .005). Chemotherapy and hormone-replacement therapy were not predictive of the overall score. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are reassuring to high-risk women who undergo early surgical menopause for their cancer predisposition. Further studies are needed to evaluate cognitive function over time when memory deficits become more prevalent.

Genetic counseling service delivery models: A study of genetic counselors' interests, needs, and barriers to implementation.

As demand for genetic services grows, innovative genetic counseling service delivery models (SDMs) are needed. However, there is limited research on the barriers and needs of genetic counselors (GCs) interested in implementing new SDMs into their practice. In fall 2017, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Access and Service Delivery Committee's SDM Subcommittee sent an online survey to the NSGC membership regarding the use of SDMs, which aimed to update the understanding of current SDM use and how this has changed over time. The survey included several questions with open-response components assessing the need for new SDMs and barriers to implementation. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify common themes. Among 517 usable responses (16% response rate), more than half (54.4%) of respondents indicated their current SDM was inadequate to address the patient need in their area. Nearly two-thirds (64.8%) indicated they were in the process of or planning to make changes to their SDM, although 40.6% did not have a specific timeline. Three major themes related to expanding access, reimbursement for services, and lack of support were identified from responses to questions about implementation of additional SDMs. Access included subthemes of geographic and physical location limitations, addressing long wait times, and the need to expand services. Reimbursement for services included issues with billing, genetic counselor licensure, and limitations due to the need for physician involvement in billing. The lack of support was evident with issues related to understaffing; difficulty gaining support at the administrative, institutional, or physician level; time constraints; and funding concerns. This study shows that GCs need education, tools, and resources to overcome barriers in implementing new or adapting current SDMs, and there is a need for policy change, including new billing and coverage models.

Genetic Counseling Service Delivery Models in the United States: Assessment of changes in use from 2010 to 2017.

In 2010, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) membership was surveyed about their use of genetic counseling service delivery models (SDMs) including in-person, telephone, telegenetics, and group genetic counseling. Since that time, the demand for genetic counseling services has increased in the United States (US). We hypothesized that the use of various SDMs has increased to help address the growing demand. To assess for changes in SDM use and interest in implementing innovative SDMs, the NSGC SDM subcommittee sent an electronic survey to the NSGC membership (N = 3,616), which was open from August 2017 to December 2017. Descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis were used to compare and identify differences in SDM utilization between 2010 and 2017. There were 590 total responses (16.3% response rate) with 517 usable responses, representing multiple genetic counseling specialties. Compared to 2010, significantly fewer respondents indicated they 'always' provide services in-person in 2017 (p < .04, df = 4), with 92.6% of respondents reporting 'always' or 'often' utilizing in-person SDM in 2017. Telephone genetic counseling was reported by 12.5% as a model used always or often, compared to 8% in 2010; however, the shift toward or away from telephone genetic counseling since 2010 was not statistically significant (p = .27, df = 4). The number of respondents using telegenetics always or often increased from 2.3% in 2010 to 6.7% in 2017, and more respondents report using telegenetics at an increased frequency (p < .01, df = 4). In contrast, those reporting use of a group genetic counseling SDM always or often decreased from 3.0% to 1.4%, though there was not a significant shift toward or away the frequency of respondents using group genetic counseling (p = .21, df = 4). Almost all respondents (93%) were interested in implementing an additional and/or different SDM; however, many (74%) identified barriers to implementation. There was an increase in those reporting use of 3 or 4 SDMs in practice since 2010 (p < .02). Genetic counselors may be attempting to compensate for longer wait times by implementing additional SDMs to improve access for patients. There is strong interest in learning about and implementing innovative SDMs to improve access and efficiency. However, resources need to be developed to help genetic counselors identify and overcome implementation barriers to achieve these goals.

Genetic Counseling and Testing in a Community Setting: Quality, Access, and Efficiency.

There is an increasing need for genetic counseling and testing for individuals diagnosed with cancer, as treatment may be affected by the results. In addition, the identification of individuals before a diagnosis of cancer allows for optimal surveillance and early detection and prevention of cancer. With the recognition that as much as 10% of all cancers are hereditary, there is a growing need to improve access to genetic counseling and genetic testing, both before and at the time of diagnosis. This article focuses on models of identifying at-risk patients, including underserved communities; providing genetic counseling and testing in community practices; using telehealth; and collaborating with nongenetics health care providers and technological solutions to maximize efficiency and access.

Movement of Genetic Counselors from Clinical to Non-clinical Positions: Identifying Driving Forces.

A previous study of genetic counselors (GCs) in the state of Indiana identified movement out of clinical positions within the past 2 years. The aims of this study were to determine if this trend is nationwide and identify reasons why GCs are leaving their positions and factors that might help employers attract and retain GCs. An email was sent to members of the American Board of Genetic Counseling with a link to an online confidential survey. There were 939 responses (23.5% response rate). Overall, 52% of GCs report being highly satisfied in their current position, although almost two thirds think about leaving and one third had changed jobs within the past 2 years. Of those who had changed jobs (n = 295), 74.9% had been working in a hospital/clinic setting but only 46.3% currently do, demonstrating a major shift out of the clinic (p < 0.001). The top three reasons cited for leaving a position were work environment/institutional climate, salary/benefits, and a lack of feeling valued/recognized as a professional. These results confirm that GCs are moving out of clinical positions and document elements of job satisfaction. We suggest points for employers to consider when trying to recruit or retain GCs.

The past, present and future of service delivery in genetic counseling: Keeping up in the era of precision medicine.

Precision medicine aims to approach disease treatment and prevention with consideration of the variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle for each person. This focus on the individual is also key to the practice of genetic counseling, whereby foundational professional values prioritize informed and autonomous patient decisions regarding their genetic health. Genetic counselors are ideally suited to help realize the goals of the precision medicine. However, a limited genetic counseling workforce at a time in which there is a rapidly growing need for services is challenging the balance of supply and demand. This article provides historical context to better understand what has informed traditional models of genetic counseling and considers some of the current forces that require genetic counselors to adapt their practice. New service delivery models can improve access to genetic healthcare by overcoming geographical barriers, allowing genetic counselors to see a higher volume of patients and supporting other healthcare providers to better provide genetic services to meet the needs of their patients. Approaches to genetic counseling service delivery are considered with a forward focus to the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for genetic counselors in this age of precision health.

A Two-Phase Approach to Developing SNAP: an iPhone Application to Support Appointment Scheduling and Management for Women with a BRCA Mutation.

Professional organizations provide surveillance guidelines for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) carriers with intact breasts and/or ovaries to facilitate early cancer detection. However, literature indicates adherence to surveillance guidelines is inconsistent at best. Using the Messaging Model for Health Communication Campaigns framework, we undertook a two-phase formative research approach to develop an intervention to promote adherence to surveillance guidelines. Discussion groups identified preferred intervention format and function in phase I. Findings indicated carriers desired a phone application (app) to assist with surveillance management and appointment tracking. Thus, an iPhone app for carriers to track appointments based on published surveillance guidelines was developed. In phase II, we obtained feedback from BRCA carriers via a survey during a prototype demonstration at a regional conference. Participants in phase II wanted reminder capabilities and the ability to add and modify information fields. This feedback informed intervention modifications, resulting in the Scheduling Necessary Advised Procedures (SNAP) iPhone app currently being pilot tested by BRCA carriers throughout the USA.

Physical activity during adolescence and young adulthood and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is inversely associated with the risk of breast cancer among women in the general population. It is not clear whether or not physical activity is associated with the risk of BRCA-associated breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study of 443 matched pairs of BRCA mutation carriers to evaluate the association between physical activity and breast cancer risk. Moderate and vigorous physical activities at ages 12-13, ages 14-17, ages 18-22, ages 23-29 and ages 30-34 were determined using the Nurses' Health Study II Physical Activity Questionnaire. We estimated mean metabolic equivalent task hours/week for moderate, vigorous and total physical activities overall (ages 12-34), during adolescence (ages 12-17) and during early adulthood (ages 18-34). Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for total, moderate and strenuous recreational physical activities and breast cancer risk, by menopausal status. RESULTS: Overall, there was no significant association between total physical activity and subsequent breast cancer risk (ORQ4 vs. Q1 = 1.01, 95% CI 0.69-1.47; P-trend = 0.72). Moderate physical activity between ages 12-17 was associated with a 38% decreased risk of premenopausal breast cancer (ORQ4 vs. Q1 = 0.62; 95% CI 0.40-0.96; P-trend = 0.01). We found no association between exercise and breast cancer diagnosed after menopause. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that early-life physical activity is associated with a reduced risk of premenopausal breast cancer among BRCA mutation carriers. IMPACT: Future prospective analyses, complemented by mechanistic evidence, are warranted in this high-risk population.

An iPhone Application Intervention to Promote Surveillance Among Women with a BRCA Mutation: Pre-intervention Data.

Women with BRCA mutations, at significantly increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer, do not consistently adhere to management guidelines due to lack of awareness and challenges tracking appointments. We developed an iPhone application (app) to help BRCA carriers manage their surveillance. We explored baseline awareness and adherence to surveillance guidelines and analytic data from 21 months of app use. Descriptive statistics were calculated on responses (N = 86) to a survey about surveillance awareness and practices. The majority were aware of breast surveillance guidelines, but only one third were aware of ovarian surveillance guidelines. In practice, the majority reported a clinical breast exam within 6 months, just over half reported a mammogram and breast MRI in the last year, and under half reported ovarian surveillance in the last year. Nearly 50% reported difficulty remembering appointments. Although only 69 received access codes, 284 unique users attempted to enter the app, which was visible in the iTunes store but only available to those with a study code. Evaluation of analytic data demonstrated user engagement with study participants accessing the app 427 times over the 21-month time period (range 2-57; mean = 6.28). Results indicate participants were more likely to know screening guidelines than practice them. There was interest in the app and users were engaged, suggesting app value. We will send a follow-up survey after 18 months of app use for additional evaluation and feedback.

Genetic Counselor Workforce Issues: a Survey of Genetic Counselors Licensed in the State of Indiana.

The aims of this study were to document movement of genetic counselors (GCs) out of clinical positions and identify factors that might help employers attract and retain clinical GCs. A confidential on-line survey of GCs ever licensed in the state of Indiana was conducted. Of the 46 respondents, most provide direct patient care (69.6 %), have worked in their current position for 5 years or less (72.1 %), and are experienced genetic counselors, having graduated between 6 and 15 years ago (43.5 %). One-third (32.6 %) reported thinking about leaving their current position at least monthly. GCs were more likely to think about leaving their current position when they provided direct patient care (p = 0.04) and worked in a hospital/clinic setting (p = 0.01). Among the 18 respondents that changed jobs in the past two years, 55.6 % currently work in a laboratory/industry setting and 44.4 % provide direct patient care, compared to 8 % of those in a stable position (N = 25) who work in a laboratory/industry setting (p < 0.01) and 88 % who provide direct patient care (p < 0.01). Genetic counselors who have changed jobs within the past 2 years were more satisfied with the possibility for advancement (p = 0.01), the recognition for work they do (p = 0.03) and feeling value from the organization (p = 0.04) in their current positions than those who have not changed jobs. Salary and flexibility were most often reported as reasons for changing jobs. This is the first documentation of the movement of GCs out of clinical roles into industry positions. This changing landscape may impact the access to clinical services and the training of genetic counseling students. This data will provide employers with data to help attract and retain GCs in clinical roles.

A collaborative approach to cancer risk assessment services using genetic counselor extenders in a multi-system community hospital.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate a unique approach to cancer risk assessment for improved access by smaller rural communities. METHODS: Local, on-site nurse navigators were trained and utilized as genetic counselor extenders (GCEs) to provide basic risk assessment and offer BRCA1/2 genetic testing to select patients based on a triaging process in collaboration with board-certified genetic counselors (CGCs). RESULTS: From August 2012 to July 2014, 12,477 family history questionnaires representing 8937 unique patients presenting for a screening mammogram or new oncology appointment were triaged. Of these, 8.2 % patients were identified at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer, and 4.2 % were identified at increased risk for other hereditary causes of cancer. A total of 75 of 1130 at-risk patients identified (6.6 %) completed a genetic risk assessment appointment; 23 with a GCE and 52 with a CGC. A review of the completed genetic test requisition forms from a 9-year pre-collaboration time period found that 16 % (20/125) did not appear to meet genetic testing criteria. Overall, there was a fourfold increase in patients accessing genetic services in this study period compared to the pre-collaboration time period. Efficiency of this model was assessed by determining time spent by the CGC in all activities related to the collaboration, which amounted to approximately 16 h/month. Adjustments have been made and the program continues to be monitored for opportunities to improve efficiency. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of CGCs and GCEs collaborating to improve access to quality services in an efficient manner.

An Individual with Both MUTYH-Associated Polyposis and Lynch Syndrome Identified by Multi-Gene Hereditary Cancer Panel Testing: A Case Report.

The utilization of next-generation sequencing technology to interrogate multiple genes simultaneously is being utilized more frequently in hereditary cancer testing. While this has benefits of reducing cost and allowing clinicians to cast a wide net in the elucidation of their patient's cancer, panel testing has the potential to reveal unexpected information. We report on a proband with pathogenic variants resulting in two different hereditary colon cancer syndromes. A 39-year-old male with a history of colon cancer, more than 20 colon polyps and a family history of colon cancer presented for genetic counseling. Testing with a 7-gene high-risk hereditary colon cancer panel identified a homozygous pathogenic variant, c.1187G>A (p.Gly396Asp) in MUTYH, and a likely pathogenic duplication of exon 7 in MSH2. Since this test result, the proband's mother was diagnosed with colon cancer; subsequent genetic testing confirmed she also carries the likely pathogenic duplication in the MSH2 gene. Although the cancer risk in individuals who carry multiple pathogenic variants has not been established for combined biallelic MUTYH-associated polyposis and Lynch syndrome, the identification of multiple pathogenic variants does allow for screening for cancers associated with both syndromes and has implications for cancer risk for family members. In particular, this has significant impact on those who test negative for a known familial pathogenic variant, yet could be still be at risk for cancer due to a second pathogenic variant in a family. More information is needed on the frequency of occurrence of multiple pathogenic variants, as well as the phenotypic spectrum when multiple pathogenic variants are present.

Analysis of Advantages, Limitations, and Barriers of Genetic Counseling Service Delivery Models.

Previous studies on genetic counseling service delivery models (SDMs) have shown that genetic counselors (GCs) are incorporating alternate models to address growing service demand and improve access to genetic services. This study sought to identify barriers, limitations and advantages to previously identified genetic counseling SDMs. A qualitative research design was employed, in which 20 practicing GCs who utilize a variety of SDMs were interviewed using an email interview format. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis to identify themes related to implementation and utilization of SDMs. Factors that led GCs to implement SDMs other than in-person genetic counseling included: 1) travel distance, 2) wait time and 3) convenience. Logistical issues such as billing and reimbursement, equipment set up, making arrangements for genetic testing and the inability to see the patient are major limitations to alternative genetic counseling SDMs in clinical practice. However, GCs interviewed stated that the convenience to the patient and genetic counselor of alternative SDMs outweighed these limitations. More research is needed to assess the outcomes of SDMs in practice to demonstrate an impact on the identified barriers of travel distance, wait time and convenience.

The genetic basis of Lynch syndrome and its implications for clinical practice and risk management.

Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of hereditary colon cancer, and accounts for as much as 3% of all colon and endometrial cancers. The identification and management of individuals with Lynch syndrome have evolved over the past 20 years, yet the syndrome remains vastly underdiagnosed. It is important for clinicians to recognize individuals and families who are at risk in order to be able to manage them appropriately and reduce their morbidity and mortality from this condition. This review will touch on the history of Lynch syndrome, the current knowledge of genotype-phenotype correlations, the cancers associated with Lynch syndrome, and management of individuals who are gene carriers.