Genetic testing practices among specialist physicians who treat prostate cancer A Canadian, cross-sectional survey.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with prostate cancer (PCa), the identification of an alteration in genes associated with homologous recombination repair (HRR) has implications for prognostication, optimization of therapy, and familial risk mitigation. The aim of this study was to assess the genomic testing landscape of PCa in Canada and to recommend an approach to offering germline and tumor testing for HRR-associated genes. METHODS: The Canadian Genitourinary Research Consortium (GURC) administered a cross-sectional survey to a largely academic, multidisciplinary group of investigators across 22 GURC sites between January and June 2022. RESULTS: Thirty-eight investigators from all 22 sites responded to the survey. Germline genetic testing was initiated by 34%, while 45% required a referral to a genetic specialist. Most investigators (82%) reported that both germline and tumor testing were needed, with 92% currently offering germline and 72% offering tissue testing to patients with advanced PCa. The most cited reasons for not offering testing were an access gap (50%), uncertainties around who to test and which genes to test, (33%) and interpreting results (17%). A majority reported that patients with advanced PCa (74-80%) should be tested, with few investigators testing patients with localized disease except when there is a family history of PCa (45-55%). CONCLUSIONS: Canadian physicians with academic subspecialist backgrounds in genitourinary malignancies recognize the benefits of both germline and somatic testing in PCa; however, there are challenges in accessing testing across practices and specialties. An algorithm to reduce uncertainty for providers when ordering genetic testing for patients with PCa is proposed.

Germline Testing and Somatic Tumor Testing for BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variants in Ovarian Cancer: What Is the Optimal Sequence of Testing?

PURPOSE: In 2020, ASCO recommended that all women with epithelial ovarian cancer have germline testing for BRCA1/2 mutations, and those without a germline pathogenic variant (PV) should have somatic tumor testing to determine eligibility for a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. Consequently, the majority of patients with ovarian cancer will have both germline testing and somatic testing. An alternate strategy is tumor testing first and then germline testing if there is a PV in the tumor and/or significant family history. The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the two testing strategies. METHODS: The Markov model compared the costs (US dollars) and benefits of two testing strategies for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer: (1) ASCO strategy and (2) tumor testing triage for germline testing. Data were applied from SOLO-1, and costs were from wholesale acquisition prices, Medicare, and published sources. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around various parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated the number tested and identified with germline and somatic BRCA PV for olaparib maintenance treatment annually in the US population. RESULTS: The ASCO strategy was more effective but more costly than tumor testing triage in identifying patients for olaparib, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $281,296 US dollars per progression-free life year gained. Assuming 10,000 eligible patients with ovarian cancer annually, Monte Carlo simulation yielded comparable numbers of patients with BRCA PV in the germline and tumor with the ASCO and tumor testing triage strategies (2,080 v 2,062, respectively), but substantially higher number of patients tested using the ASCO strategy (8,052 v 3,076). CONCLUSION: The ASCO strategy may identify more BRCA PVs but is not cost-effective. Tumor testing in epithelial ovarian cancer as triage for germline testing is the favored strategy in this health care system.

Use of Treatment-Focused Tumor Sequencing to Screen for Germline Cancer Predisposition.

Next-generation sequencing assays are capable of identifying cancer patients eligible for targeted therapies and can also detect germline variants associated with increased cancer susceptibility. However, these capabilities have yet to be routinely harmonized in a single assay because of challenges with accurately identifying germline variants from tumor-only data. We have developed the Oncology and Hereditary Cancer Program targeted capture panel, which uses tumor tissue to simultaneously screen for both clinically actionable solid tumor variants and germline variants across 45 genes. Validation using 14 tumor specimens, composed of patient samples and cell lines analyzed in triplicate, demonstrated high coverage with sensitive and specific identification of single-nucleotide variants and small insertions and deletions. Average coverage across all targets remained >2000× in 198 additional patient tumor samples. Analysis of 55 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples for the detection of known germline variants within a subset of cancer-predisposition genes, including one multiexon deletion, yielded a 100% detection rate, demonstrating that germline variants can be reliably detected in tumor samples using a single panel. Combining targetable somatic and actionable germline variants into a single tumor tissue assay represents a streamlined approach that can inform treatment for patients with advanced cancers as well as identify those with potential germline variants who are eligible for confirmatory testing, but would not otherwise have been identified.

Integrating Tumor Sequencing Into Clinical Practice for Patients With Mismatch Repair-Deficient Lynch Syndrome Spectrum Cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Uninformative germline genetic testing presents a challenge to clinical management for patients suspected to have Lynch syndrome, a cancer predisposition syndrome caused by germline variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes or EPCAM. METHODS: Among a consecutive series of MMR-deficient Lynch syndrome spectrum cancers identified through immunohistochemistry-based tumor screening, we investigated the clinical utility of tumor sequencing for the molecular diagnosis and management of suspected Lynch syndrome families. MLH1-deficient colorectal cancers were prescreened for BRAF V600E before referral for genetic counseling. Microsatellite instability, MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, and somatic and germline genetic variants in the MMR genes were assessed according to an established clinical protocol. RESULTS: Eighty-four individuals with primarily colorectal (62%) and endometrial (31%) cancers received tumor-normal sequencing as part of routine clinical genetic assessment. Overall, 27% received a molecular diagnosis of Lynch syndrome. Most of the MLH1-deficient tumors were more likely of sporadic origin, mediated by MLH1 promoter hypermethylation in 54% and double somatic genetic alterations in MLH1 (17%). MSH2-deficient, MSH6-deficient, and/or PMS2-deficient tumors could be attributed to pathogenic germline variants in 37% and double somatic events in 28%. Notably, tumor sequencing could explain 49% of cases without causal germline variants, somatic MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, or somatic variants in BRAF. DISCUSSION: Our findings support the integration of tumor sequencing into current Lynch syndrome screening programs to improve clinical management for individuals whose germline testing is uninformative.

Oncology Clinic-Based Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing in a Population-Based Health Care System.

New streamlined models for genetic counseling and genetic testing have recently been developed in response to increasing demand for cancer genetic services. To improve access and decrease wait times, we implemented an oncology clinic-based genetic testing model for breast and ovarian cancer patients in a publicly funded population-based health care setting in British Columbia, Canada. This observational study evaluated the oncology clinic-based model as compared to a traditional one-on-one approach with a genetic counsellor using a multi-gene panel testing approach. The primary objectives were to evaluate wait times and patient reported outcome measures between the oncology clinic-based and traditional genetic counselling models. Secondary objectives were to describe oncologist and genetic counsellor acceptability and experience. Wait times from referral to return of genetic testing results were assessed for 400 patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer undergoing genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer from June 2015 to August 2017. Patient wait times from referral to return of results were significantly shorter with the oncology clinic-based model as compared to the traditional model (403 vs. 191 days; p < 0.001). A subset of 148 patients (traditional n = 99; oncology clinic-based n = 49) completed study surveys to assess uncertainty, distress, and patient experience. Responses were similar between both models. Healthcare providers survey responses indicated they believed the oncology clinic-based model was acceptable and a positive experience. Oncology clinic-based genetic testing using a multi-gene panel approach and post-test counselling with a genetic counsellor significantly reduced wait times and is acceptable for patients and health care providers.