Development of an Electronic Decision Aid Tool to Facilitate Mainstream Genetic Testing in Ovarian Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Multigene panel testing is an important component of cancer treatment plans and risk assessment, but there are many different panel options and choosing the most appropriate panel can be challenging for health care providers and patients. Electronic tools have been proposed to help patients make informed decisions about which gene panel to choose by considering their preferences and priorities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic decision aid (DA) tool was developed in line with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards collaboration. The multidisciplinary project team collaborated with an external health care communications agency and the MGH Cancer Center Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) to develop the DA. Surveys of genetic counselors and patients were used to scope the content, and alpha testing was used to refine the design and content. RESULTS: Surveys of genetic counselors (n = 12) and patients (n = 228) identified common themes in discussing panel size and strategies for helping patients decide between panels and in identifying confusing terms for patients and distribution of patients' choices. The DA, organized into 2 major sections, provides educational text, graphics, and videos to guide patients through the decision-making process. Alpha testing feedback from the PFAC (n = 4), genetic counselors (n = 3) and a group of lay people (n = 8) identified areas to improve navigation, simplify wording, and improve layout. CONCLUSION: The DA developed in this study has the potential to facilitate informed decision-making by patients regarding cancer genetic testing. The distinctive feature of this DA is that it addresses the specific question of which multigene panel may be most suitable for the patient. Its acceptability and effectiveness will be evaluated in future studies.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, including BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53, and recommended approaches to genetic counseling/testing and care strategies in individuals with these P/LP variants. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize important updates regarding: (1) a new section for transgender, nonbinary and gender diverse people who have a hereditary predisposition to cancer focused on risk reduction strategies for ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer; and (2) testing criteria and management associated with TP53 P/LP variants and Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

Patient decisions regarding cancer gene panel testing: An exploratory study.

This study examined factors associated with the selection of a specific multi-gene panel test by patients in a cancer genetic counseling clinic. We surveyed patients who received pre-test genetic counseling at the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Cancer Risk Assessment (CCRA) in 2019 and their genetic counselors to assess demographic and clinical characteristics, patient concerns, and session outcome. Ultimately, 228 eligible participants completed the survey, of whom 85.1% consented to genetic testing. Of those who chose testing, 56.2% selected the largest panel type available, a pan-cancer panel that included both actionable and inactionable genes. White patients were more likely than non-white patients to pursue testing. Among testers, number of testing options offered, participant educational attainment, age, and NCCN Guidelines status were associated with patient choice between four panel options. Some patient concerns, including impact of results on future cancer screening and family dynamics, were also linked to test choice. Several other participant characteristics including income, cancer diagnosis, and family structure did not appear to be predictive of testing choice. Our results confirmed the patient preference for large gene panels and identified a limited number of associations between patient characteristics and concerns and testing choice. We noted however that a significant number of participants did not choose the most commonly selected test, and that test choice is difficult to predict based on clinical and demographic factors. Our results also provide further evidence of well-documented disparities in cancer genetic testing. Study limitations do not allow our findings to be generalized to all cancer genetic counseling patients. Further research is needed to examine how and why patients choose between multiple genetic test options in the cancer setting. This study was one of the first to examine patient choice between a full spectrum of multi-gene panel options.

Performance of the shared decision-making process scale for use in evaluation of hereditary cancer genetic testing decisions.

This study aimed to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, reliability, and validity of the existing four-item Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process Scale for use in evaluating genetic testing decisions. Patients from a large hereditary cancer genetics practice were invited to participate in a two-part survey after completing pre-test genetic counseling. The online survey included the SDM Process Scale and the SURE scale, a measure of decisional conflict. SDM Process scores were compared to SURE scores to test convergent validity, and respondents were sent a second survey 1 week later to assess retest reliability. The response rate was 65% (n = 259/398) and missing data was low (<1%). SDM scores ranged from zero to four with a mean of 2.3 (SD = 1.1). Retest reliability was good, with intraclass correlation of 0.84, 95% confidence interval (0.79, 0.88). No relationship was found between SDM Process scores and decisional conflict (p = 0.46), likely because 85% of participants reported no decisional conflict. The four-item SDM Process Scale demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and retest reliability, but not convergent validity with decisional conflict. These findings provide initial evidence for use of this scale to measure patient perceptions of SDM in pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer genetic testing.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer and recommended approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This manuscript focuses on cancer risk and risk management for BRCA-related breast/ovarian cancer syndrome and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Carriers of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant have an excessive risk for both breast and ovarian cancer that warrants consideration of more intensive screening and preventive strategies. There is also evidence that risks of prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer are elevated in these carriers. Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a highly penetrant cancer syndrome associated with a high lifetime risk for cancer, including soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, premenopausal breast cancer, colon cancer, gastric cancer, adrenocortical carcinoma, and brain tumors.

Transition to telephone genetic counseling services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted the delivery of healthcare services, including oncology. To ensure continuity of cancer genetic counseling at a large academic medical center while also promoting the safety of patients and staff, our team transitioned to fully remote telephone genetic counseling and testing services within 48 hr. We compare differences in the six weeks following the shift to telephone genetic counseling (post-COVID) to the six weeks preceding the pandemic (pre-COVID). We maintained 99% of our total visit capacity and saw a decrease in patient no-show rate from 9.5% to 7.3%. Of all patients who received telephone genetic counseling, fewer consented to genetic testing as compared to patients seen in-person prior to the pandemic (79% pre-COVID v. 72% post-COVID; p = .012). Four weeks after this cohort was closed for analysis, 96 out of 303 samples (32%) had not been received by the genetic testing laboratory, despite at least one reminder phone call to the patient. In 13 reported instances, a second sample was required (quality not sufficient, lost or mislabeled sample), thus delaying test results. We conclude that a rapid transition to remote genetic counseling and testing allowed uninterrupted access to cancer genetics services during to the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient compliance with sample return and higher rates of sample failure emerge as potential barriers to timely genetic testing under this service delivery model.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 1.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes, and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with syndromes associated with an increased risk of these cancers. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments, examine relevant new data, and reevaluate and update recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding criteria for high-penetrance genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer beyond BRCA1/2, pancreas screening and genes associated with pancreatic cancer, genetic testing for the purpose of systemic therapy decision-making, and testing for people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

Factors associated with referral and completion of genetic counseling in women with epithelial ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that all women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer undergo genetic testing, as the diagnosis of pathogenic variants may inform cancer survival and impact treatment options. The objective of this study was to assess factors associated with referral to genetic counseling in women with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified women with epithelial ovarian cancer from 2012 to 2017 at Massachusetts General Hospital and North Shore Medical Center, a community hospital affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated how race, age, stage, year of diagnosis, insurance status, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, and language relates to the receipt of genetic counseling. RESULTS: Of the total 276 women included, 73.9% were referred for genetic screening, of which 90.7% attended a genetic counseling visit. Older women were less likely to undergo genetic counseling (age ≥70 years: OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.94, p=0.04). Women who died within 365 days of initial oncology consult rarely reached a genetic counselor (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.24, p<0.001). Women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer were more likely to undergo counseling (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.74-6.15, p<0.001). There was no difference in receipt of genetic counseling by race, stage, year of diagnosis, insurance status, or language. CONCLUSION: Older women with epithelial ovarian cancer and those who died within 1 year of initiation of care were less likely to undergo recommended genetic counseling. Race, insurance status, and language were not identified as predictive factors, although we were limited in this assessment by small sample size.

Universal screening of both endometrial and colon cancers increases the detection of Lynch syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common hereditary cause of colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC). Screening of all CRCs for LS is currently recommended, but screening of ECs is inconsistent. The objective of this study was to determine the added value of screening both CRC and EC tumors in the same population. METHODS: A prospective, immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based screening program for all patients with newly diagnosed CRCs and ECs was initiated in 2011 and 2013, respectively, at 2 centers (primary and tertiary). Genetic testing was recommended for those who had tumors with absent mutS homolog 2 (MSH2), MSH6, or postmeiotoic segregation increased 2 (PMS2) expression and for those who had tumors with absent mutL homolog 1 (MLH1) expression and no v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) mutation or MLH1 promoter methylation. Amsterdam II criteria, revised Bethesda criteria, and scores from prediction models for gene mutations (the PREMM1,2,6 and PREMM5 prediction models) were ascertained in patients with LS. RESULTS: In total, 1290 patients with CRC and 484 with EC were screened for LS, and genetic testing was recommended for 137 patients (10.6%) and 32 patients (6.6%), respectively (P = .01). LS was identified in 16 patients (1.2%) with CRC and in 8 patients (1.7%) with EC. Among patients for whom genetic testing was recommended, the LS diagnosis rate was higher among those with EC (25.0% vs 11.7%, P = .052). The Amsterdam II criteria, revised Bethesda criteria, and both PREMM calculators would have missed 62.5%, 50.0%, and 12.5% of the identified patients with LS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding a universal screening program for LS to include patients who had EC identified 50% more patients with LS, and many of these patients would have been missed by risk assessment tools (including PREMM5 ). Universal screening programs for LS should include both CRC and EC. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Finding a Balance: Reconciling the Needs of the Institution, Patient, and Genetic Counselor for Optimal Resource Utilization.

The current practice of cancer genetic counseling is undergoing widespread change and scrutiny. While there are clinical resources for genetic counselors (GCs) regarding the delivery of cancer genetic services, there is limited literature regarding effective management of a genetic counseling clinical program. We have developed administrative tools to manage a large team of GCs at a single academic medical center over a period of increasing demand for genetics services, with the initial aim of decreasing wait time for urgent genetic counseling visits. Here, we describe the three main elements of the clinical operations: Balancing patient volume between GCs, scheduling tracks for both routine and urgent appointments, and a team of triaging GCs to ensure appropriate patient referrals. For each of these elements, we describe how they have been modified over time and present data to support the utility of these strategies. The preliminary evidence offered here suggests that these tools allow for an equitable distribution of patient volume between team members, as well as the timely and accurate scheduling of urgent patients. As a result of the experiences presented here, other genetic counseling programs grappling with similar issues should be aware that it is possible to shift clinical operations to serve certain patient populations in a more timely fashion while keeping both providers and GC staff satisfied.

Selective Inhibition of Autotaxin Is Efficacious in Mouse Models of Liver Fibrosis.

Autotaxin (ATX) is a secreted glycoprotein that converts lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC) to the bioactive phospholipid lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) and is the major enzyme generating circulating LPA. Inhibition of LPA signaling has profound antifibrotic effects in multiple organ systems, including lung, kidney, skin, and peritoneum. However, other LPA-generating pathways exist, and the role of ATX in localized tissue LPA production and fibrosis remains unclear and controversial. In this study, we describe the preclinical pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic properties of a novel small-molecule ATX inhibitor, PAT-505 [3-((6-chloro-2-cyclopropyl-1-(1-ethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-7-fluoro-1H-indol-3-yl) thio)-2-fluorobenzoic acid sodium salt]. PAT-505 is a potent, selective, noncompetitive inhibitor that displays significant inhibition of ATX activity in plasma and liver tissue after oral administration. When dosed therapeutically in a Stelic Mouse Animal Model of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), PAT-505 treatment resulted in a small but significant improvement in fibrosis with only minor improvements in hepatocellular ballooning and hepatic inflammation. In a choline-deficient, high-fat diet model of NASH, therapeutic treatment with PAT-505 robustly reduced liver fibrosis with no significant effect on steatosis, hepatocellular ballooning, or inflammation. These data demonstrate that inhibiting autotaxin is antifibrotic and may represent a novel therapeutic approach for the treatment of multiple fibrotic liver diseases, including NASH.

A tailored approach to BRAF and MLH1 methylation testing in a universal screening program for Lynch syndrome.

To determine the correlation between BRAF genotype and MLH1 promoter methylation in a screening program for Lynch syndrome (LS), a universal screening program for LS was established in two medical centers. Tumors with abnormal MLH1 staining were evaluated for both BRAF V600E genotype and MLH1 promoter methylation. Tumors positive for both were considered sporadic, and genetic testing was recommended for all others. A total 1011 colorectal cancer cases were screened for Lynch syndrome, and 148 (14.6%) exhibited absent MLH1 immunostaining. Both BRAF and MLH1 methylation testing were completed in 126 cases. Concordant results (both positive or both negative) were obtained in 86 (68.3%) and 16 (12.7%) cases, respectively, with 81% concordance overall. The positive and negative predictive values for a BRAF mutation in predicting MLH1 promoter methylation were 98.9% and 41%, respectively, and the negative predictive value fell to 15% in patients ≥70 years old. Using BRAF genotyping as a sole test to evaluate cases with absent MLH1 staining would have increased referral rates for genetic testing by 2.3-fold compared with MLH1 methylation testing alone (31% vs 13.5%, respectively, P<0.01). However, a hybrid approach that reserves MLH1 methylation testing for BRAF wild-type cases only would significantly decrease the number of methylation assays performed and reduce the referral rate for genetic testing to 12.7%. A BRAF mutation has an excellent positive predictive value but poor negative predictive value in predicting MLH1 promoter methylation. A hybrid use of these tests may reduce the number of low-risk patients referred to genetic counseling and facilitate wider implementation of Lynch syndrome screening programs.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with a syndrome. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. The NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding risk management for carriers of moderately penetrant genetic mutations associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer.

A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling.

As healthcare reimbursement is increasingly tied to value-of-service, it is critical for the genetic counselor (GC) profession to demonstrate the value added by GCs through outcomes research. We conducted a rapid systematic literature review to identify outcomes of genetic counseling. Web of Science (including PubMed) and CINAHL databases were systematically searched to identify articles meeting the following criteria: 1) measures were assessed before and after genetic counseling (pre-post design) or comparisons were made between a GC group vs. a non-GC group (comparative cohort design); 2) genetic counseling outcomes could be assessed independently of genetic testing outcomes, and 3) genetic counseling was conducted by masters-level genetic counselors, or non-physician providers. Twenty-three papers met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were in the cancer genetic setting and the most commonly measured outcomes included knowledge, anxiety or distress, satisfaction, perceived risk, genetic testing (intentions or receipt), health behaviors, and decisional conflict. Results suggest that genetic counseling can lead to increased knowledge, perceived personal control, positive health behaviors, and improved risk perception accuracy as well as decreases in anxiety, cancer-related worry, and decisional conflict. However, further studies are needed to evaluate a wider array of outcomes in more diverse genetic counseling settings.

Perceptions of Cancer Risk, Cause, and Needs in Participants from Low Socioeconomic Background at Risk for Hereditary Cancer.

The purpose of this study was to describe perceptions of cancer risk, cause, and needs in participants from a low socioeconomic background at risk for hereditary cancer. We surveyed 307 individuals with the Cancer Awareness and Needs survey and received 128 responses (41.6% response rate). Family history, genetics, and tobacco use were selected most frequently as a cause of cancer; 36% (n = 46) selected fate and/or God's will. A total of 87.5% (n = 112) understood that having a close family member with breast cancer could increase personal risk; however responses were varied when asked if this was related to risk for other cancers. Most participants had undergone cancer screening, half reported undergoing breast magnetic resonance imaging, which was associated with personal (p < 0.01) and family cancer history (p = 0.03). An additional 76.6% (n = 98) felt informed about cancer screening and most received information from health care providers and family or friends. Ensuring that patients and clinicians are educated about hereditary cancer risk, detection, and prevention should be priorities for future research.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2015.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling and risk assessment and management for hereditary cancer syndromes. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer and are intended to assist with clinical and shared decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points of the 2015 NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meeting. Major discussion topics this year included multigene testing, risk management recommendations for less common genetic mutations, and salpingectomy for ovarian cancer risk reduction. The panel also discussed revisions to genetic testing criteria that take into account ovarian cancer histology and personal history of pancreatic cancer.

Hereditary melanoma: Update on syndromes and management: Genetics of familial atypical multiple mole melanoma syndrome.

Malignant melanoma is considered the most lethal skin cancer if it is not detected and treated during its early stages. About 10% of melanoma patients report a family history of melanoma; however, individuals with features of true hereditary melanoma (ie, unilateral lineage, multigenerational, multiple primary lesions, and early onset of disease) are in fact quite rare. Although many new loci have been implicated in hereditary melanoma, CDKN2A mutations remain the most common. Familial melanoma in the presence of multiple atypical nevi should raise suspicion for a germline CDKN2A mutation. These patients have a high risk of developing multiple primary melanomas and internal organ malignancies, especially pancreatic cancer; therefore, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary in many cases. The value of dermoscopic examination and total body photography performed at regular intervals has been suggested by a number of studies, and should therefore be considered for these patients and their first-degree relatives. In addition, genetic counseling with the possibility of testing can be a valuable adjunct for familial melanoma patients. This must be performed with care, however, and only by qualified individuals trained in cancer risk analysis.

Hereditary melanoma: Update on syndromes and management: Emerging melanoma cancer complexes and genetic counseling.

Recent advances in cancer genomics have enabled the discovery of many cancer-predisposing genes that are being used to classify new familial melanoma/cancer syndromes. In addition to CDKN2A and CDK4, germline variants in TERT, MITF, and BAP1 have been added to the list of genes harboring melanoma-predisposing mutations. These newer entities may have escaped earlier description in part because of more advanced technologies now being used and in part because of their mixed cancer phenotype as opposed to a melanoma-focused syndrome. Dermatologists should be aware of (and be able to recognize) the clinical signs in high-risk patients in different contexts. Personal and family histories of cancer should always be sought in patients with multiple nevi or a positive history for melanoma, and should be updated annually. Various features that are unique to specific disorders, such as the appearance of melanocytic BAP1-mutated atypical intradermal tumors in cases of BAP1 melanoma syndrome, should also be recognized early. These patients should be offered regular screenings with the use of dermoscopy and total body photography, as needed. More importantly, referral to other specialists may be needed if a risk for internal malignancy is suspected. It is important to have in mind that these patients tend to develop multiple melanomas, along with various internal organ malignancies, often at younger ages; a multidisciplinary approach to their cancer screening and treatment is ideal.