Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk.

As demand for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) continues to increase, so does the sense of urgency to scale up efforts to triage patients, facilitate informed consent, and order genetic testing for cancer risk. The National Society of Genetic Counselors outlines the elements of informed consent that should be addressed in a GCRA session. While this practice resource aims to improve health equity, research on how well the elements of informed consent are implemented in practice is lacking. This retrospective and prospective mixed-methods study assessed how adequately the elements of informed consent are addressed during pre-test GCRA among 307 community clinicians (CC) and 129 cancer genetic counselors (GC), and barriers they face to addressing these elements. Results revealed that more than 90% of both cohorts consistently addressed components of at least 5 of the 10 elements of informed consent during a pre-test consultation. Technical aspects and accuracy of the test and utilization of test results were the most similarly addressed elements. Notably, GCs more often review the purpose of the test and who to test, general information about the gene(s), and economic considerations whereas CCs more often review alternatives to testing. Both cohorts reported psychosocial aspects of the informed consent process as the least adequately addressed element. Time constraints and patient-related concerns were most often cited by both cohorts as barriers to optimal facilitation of informed consent. Additional barriers reported by CCs included provider lack of awareness, experience, or education, and availability of resources and institutional support. Findings from this study may contribute to the development of alternative delivery models that incorporate supplementary educational tools to enhance patient understanding about the utility of genetic testing, while helping to mitigate the barrier of time constraints. Equally important is the use of this information to develop continuing education tools for providers.

Clinical and laboratory genetic counselor attitudes on the reporting of variants of uncertain significance for multigene cancer panels.

Research suggests variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) present a variety of challenges for genetic counselors (GCs), nongenetics clinicians, and patients. Multigene cancer panels reveal more VUSs than single gene testing as a result of the increase in the number of genes being tested. This study surveyed 87 clinical cancer GCs involved with direct patient care and 19 laboratory GCs who provide guidance to clinicians regarding genetic test results about their attitudes on various options for the reporting of VUSs by laboratories for broad multigene cancer panels. Independent samples t-tests were utilized to compare the two groups. Based on a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree), clinical cancer GCs (M = 5.4; SD = 0.8) and laboratory GCs (M = 5.2; SD = 0.9) agreed overall that VUSs should be reported (p = 0.44; Cohen's d = 0.21). When asked about specific reporting options, both clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.1) and laboratory GCs (M = 2.1; SD = 1.4) disagreed that VUSs should be reported only for genes related to the indication for testing (p = 0.50; Cohen's d = 0.17). Overall, most GCs felt clinicians should not choose whether VUSs should be reported on genetic test results, with clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.3) feeling more strongly against it than laboratory GCs (M = 3.1; SD = 1.4; p = 0.002; Cohen's d = 0.88). Generally, GCs were more in favor of VUSs not being reported for population-based screening, with laboratory GCs (M = 4.7; SD = 0.8) agreeing more with that practice than clinical cancer GCs (M = 3.7; SD = 1.4; p = 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.80). Both clinical cancer GCs (M = 4.1; SD = 1.2) and laboratory GCs (M = 3.9; SD = 1.2) agreed additional guidelines on how to approach VUSs in clinical practice should be developed (p = 0.54; Cohen's d = 0.17). While most GCs supported the reporting of VUSs overall, our analyses suggest clinical cancer and laboratory GCs may have different attitudes toward specific VUS-related reporting options. Further research is needed to elucidate GC preferences to help inform best practices for the reporting of VUSs. The development of additional standardized guidelines on how to approach VUSs would further support clinical practice.

Genomes for Kids: The Scope of Pathogenic Mutations in Pediatric Cancer Revealed by Comprehensive DNA and RNA Sequencing.

Genomic studies of pediatric cancer have primarily focused on specific tumor types or high-risk disease. Here, we used a three-platform sequencing approach, including whole-genome sequencing (WGS), whole-exome sequencing (WES), and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq), to examine tumor and germline genomes from 309 prospectively identified children with newly diagnosed (85%) or relapsed/refractory (15%) cancers, unselected for tumor type. Eighty-six percent of patients harbored diagnostic (53%), prognostic (57%), therapeutically relevant (25%), and/or cancer-predisposing (18%) variants. Inclusion of WGS enabled detection of activating gene fusions and enhancer hijacks (36% and 8% of tumors, respectively), small intragenic deletions (15% of tumors), and mutational signatures revealing of pathogenic variant effects. Evaluation of paired tumor-normal data revealed relevance to tumor development for 55% of pathogenic germline variants. This study demonstrates the power of a three-platform approach that incorporates WGS to interrogate and interpret the full range of genomic variants across newly diagnosed as well as relapsed/refractory pediatric cancers. SIGNIFICANCE: Pediatric cancers are driven by diverse genomic lesions, and sequencing has proven useful in evaluating high-risk and relapsed/refractory cases. We show that combined WGS, WES, and RNA-seq of tumor and paired normal tissues enables identification and characterization of genetic drivers across the full spectrum of pediatric cancers. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 2945.

Anaplastic Astrocytoma in a Child With Coffin-Siris Syndrome and a Germline SMARCE1 Mutation: A Case Report.

Coffin-Siris syndrome (CSS) is a rare congenital disorder with variable clinical phenotype consisting of developmental delay and characteristic facial features. It is caused by mutations in the chromatin remodeling switch/sucrose nonfermenting complex. Although SWI/SNF genes are widely implicated in tumorigenesis, only 8 cases of neoplasm have been reported in patients with CSS. We report a case of anaplastic astrocytoma (WHO grade III) in an 18-month-old child with CSS due to a de novo germline missense SMARCE1 mutation. Additional molecular features of the tumor are described as well. The role of missense SMARCE1 mutations in tumor predisposition in children with CSS should be further investigated to better inform genetic counselling.

From uncertainty to pathogenicity: clinical and functional interrogation of a rare TP53 in-frame deletion.

Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a highly penetrant cancer predisposition syndrome caused by heterozygous germline mutations in the TP53 gene. Although more than 200 missense and null TP53 mutations are well established as disease-causing, little is known about the pathogenicity and cancer risks associated with small in-frame deletions. This leads to challenges in variant classification and subsequent difficulty making a molecular diagnosis. We report the genetic testing process for a pediatric patient diagnosed with an undifferentiated high-grade brain tumor following his mother's diagnosis of early-onset bilateral breast cancer. Sequential testing revealed that both harbored a heterozygous three-nucleotide deletion in exon 7 of TP53 (c.764_766delTCA; I255del), which was classified as a variant of uncertain significance. Because the maternal family history was void of any other LFS spectrum tumors, additional information was needed to effectively classify the variant. Targeted TP53 testing of the patient's maternal grandparents confirmed that neither carried the variant; this new de novo data upgraded the variant classification to likely pathogenic. To assess the impact of this mutation on the encoded p53 protein, additional in vitro analyses were performed. Structural modeling predicted that the deletion of isoleucine at codon 255 would disrupt the architecture of the DNA-binding domain, suggesting that it might negatively impact p53 function. Consistent with this notion, the I255del mutant protein exhibited significantly impaired transcriptional activity and greatly reduced growth suppressive properties, similar to more well-characterized LFS-associated p53 mutants. This report illustrates the importance of seeking additional evidence to assign proper pathogenicity classification, which enables optimal genetic counseling and medical management of individuals with LFS and their at-risk relatives.

Speaking genomics to parents offered germline testing for cancer predisposition: Use of a 2-visit consent model.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are increasingly offered genomic sequencing, including germline testing for cancer predisposition or other disorders. Such testing is unfamiliar to patients and families, and clear communication is needed to introduce genomic concepts and convey risk and benefit information. METHODS: Parents of children with cancer were offered the opportunity to have their children's tumor and germline examined with clinical genomic sequencing. Families were introduced to the study with a 2-visit informed consent model. Baseline genetic knowledge and self-reported literacy/numeracy were collected before a study introduction visit, during which basic concepts related to genomic sequencing were discussed. Information was reinforced during a second visit, during which informed consent was obtained and a posttest was administered. RESULTS: As reflected by the percentage of correct answers on the pretest and posttest assessments, this model increased genetic knowledge by 11.1% (from 77.8% to 88.9%; P < .0001) in 121 parents participating in both the study introduction and consent visits. The percentage of parents correctly identifying the meaning of somatic and germline mutations increased significantly (from 18% to 59% [somatic] and from 31% to 64% [germline]; P < .0001). Nevertheless, these concepts remained unfamiliar to one-third of the parents. No relation was identified between the change in the overall percentage of correct answers and self-reported literacy, numeracy, or demographics. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 2-visit communication model improved knowledge of concepts relevant to genomic sequencing, particularly differences between somatic and germline testing; however, these areas remained confusing to many participants, and reinforcement may be necessary to achieve complete understanding.

Integrating next-generation sequencing into pediatric oncology practice: An assessment of physician confidence and understanding of clinical genomics.

BACKGROUND: The incorporation of genomic testing to identify targetable somatic alterations and predisposing germline mutations into the clinical setting is becoming increasingly more common. Despite its potential usefulness, to the authors' knowledge physician confidence with regard to understanding and applying genomic testing remains unclear, particularly within the realm of pediatric oncology. METHODS: Before initiating an institutional feasibility study regarding the integration of clinical genomic testing, the authors surveyed pediatric oncologists regarding their confidence around understanding of genomic testing, perceived usefulness of test results, preferences around the disclosure of germline test results, and possible risks and benefits of testing. RESULTS: Among survey respondents (52 of 88 contacted; response rate of 59%), only a minority were confident in interpreting, using, and discussing somatic (35%) or germline (27%) genomic test results. Providers who were confident in interpreting somatic results were significantly more likely to anticipate using the results to plan the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory cancers (P = .009). Similarly, providers who reported confidence in interpreting germline results were significantly more likely to discuss and use these results as part of clinical care (P<.0001). The majority of physicians (93%), regardless of their level of confidence, wanted to speak to a genetic counselor before disclosing germline test results. CONCLUSIONS: Among physicians at a comprehensive pediatric cancer center, confidence in the interpretation, use, and discussion of oncology-based genomic test results appears to be low, both in terms of somatic and germline testing. To optimize the integration of genomic sequencing into cancer care, methods must be developed to improve basic competencies around cancer-based genomic testing. Given the complexities surrounding variant interpretation and genotype-phenotype relationships, interdisciplinary collaborations are warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2352-2359. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Calcaneonavicular Coalition Resection With Pes Planovalgus Reconstruction.

Calcaneonavicular coalitions can lead to a painful, rigid pes planovalgus deformity. Historical treatment of coalitions recommends resection. A newer concept in coalition treatment includes concomitant flatfoot reconstruction. In the present study, we hoped to demonstrate the ability to reconstruct a flatfoot deformity with concomitant calcaneonavicular coalition resection. We performed a retrospective comparative study of patients undergoing isolated calcaneonavicular bar excision (group A) with those undergoing calcaneonavicular bar excision and concomitant pes planovalgus reconstruction (group B). The radiographic parameters of pes planovalgus correction were measured on the pre- and postoperative radiographs, including talar head uncoverage, calcaneal inclination, and anteroposterior and lateral talo-first metatarsal angle. Calcaneonavicular coalition resection was performed using a standard technique with or without biologic spacers. Associated flatfoot reconstruction included posterior muscle group lengthening, calcaneal osteotomy, and/or midfoot osteotomy. Of the 27 patients, 20 were included in group A and 7 in group B. Their mean age was 18.1 years. Improvement was seen in the radiographic parameters for patients undergoing calcaneonavicular bar excision with concomitant flatfoot procedures, with statistical significance found in the calcaneal inclination (p = .013). Talar head uncoverage improved in both groups (p = .011). No change was found in the radiographic angles in patients undergoing isolated calcaneonavicular bar excision. No patients in either group developed recurrence of the coalition. The results of the present study demonstrated radiographic improvement in patients undergoing calcaneonavicular bar excision with concomitant pes planovalgus reconstruction. Hindfoot reconstruction with joint sparing osteotomies during coalition excision is a reasonable option to improve alignment and avoid arthrodesis.