Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and surveillance of BAP1 tumour predisposition syndrome.

BRCA1-associated protein-1 (BAP1) is a recognised tumour suppressor gene. Germline BAP1 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants are associated with predisposition to multiple tumours, including uveal melanoma, malignant pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, renal cell carcinoma and specific non-malignant neoplasms of the skin, as part of the autosomal dominant BAP1-tumour predisposition syndrome. The overall lifetime risk for BAP1 carriers to develop at least one BAP1-associated tumour is up to 85%, although due to ascertainment bias, current estimates of risk are likely to be overestimated. As for many rare cancer predisposition syndromes, there is limited scientific evidence to support the utility of surveillance and, therefore, management recommendations for BAP1 carriers are based on expert opinion. To date, European recommendations for BAP1 carriers have not been published but are necessary due to the emerging phenotype of this recently described syndrome and increased identification of BAP1 carriers via large gene panels or tumour sequencing. To address this, the Clinical Guideline Working Group of the CanGene-CanVar project in the United Kingdom invited European collaborators to collaborate to develop guidelines to harmonize surveillance programmes within Europe. Recommendations with respect to BAP1 testing and surveillance were achieved following literature review and Delphi survey completed by a core group and an extended expert group of 34 European specialists including Geneticists, Ophthalmologists, Oncologists, Dermatologists and Pathologists. It is recognised that these largely evidence-based but pragmatic recommendations will evolve over time as further data from research collaborations informs the phenotypic spectrum and surveillance outcomes.

A digital pathway for genetic testing in UK NHS patients with cancer: BRCA-DIRECT randomised study internal pilot.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing affords multiple opportunities for women with breast cancer, however, current UK NHS models for delivery of germline genetic testing are clinician-intensive and only a minority of breast cancer cases access testing. METHODS: We designed a rapid, digital pathway, supported by a genetics specialist hotline, for delivery of germline testing of BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 (BRCA-testing), integrated into routine UK NHS breast cancer care. We piloted the pathway, as part of the larger BRCA-DIRECT study, in 130 unselected patients with breast cancer and gathered preliminary data from a randomised comparison of delivery of pretest information digitally (fully digital pathway) or via telephone consultation with a genetics professional (partially digital pathway). RESULTS: Uptake of genetic testing was 98.4%, with good satisfaction reported for both the fully and partially digital pathways. Similar outcomes were observed in both arms regarding patient knowledge score and anxiety, with <5% of patients contacting the genetics specialist hotline. All progression criteria established for continuation of the study were met. CONCLUSION: Pilot data indicate preliminary demonstration of feasibility and acceptability of a fully digital pathway for BRCA-testing and support proceeding to a full powered study for evaluation of non-inferiority of the fully digital pathway, detailed quantitative assessment of outcomes and operational economic analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN87845055.

The integration of BRCA testing into oncology clinics.

PURPOSE: The PARP inhibitor, Olaparib, is approved for women with BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer. Therefore there is an urgent need to test patients and obtain results in time to influence treatment. Models of BRCA testing, such as the mainstreaming oncogenetic pathway, involving oncology health professionals are being used. The authors report on the establishment of the extended role of the clinical nurse specialist in consenting women for BRCA testing in routine gynaecology-oncology clinics using the mainstreaming model. METHODS: Nurses undertook generic consent training and specific counselling training for BRCA testing in the form of a series of online videos, written materials and checklists before obtaining approval to consent patients for germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. RESULTS: Between July 2013 and December 2015, 108 women with ovarian cancer were counselled and consented by nurses in the medical oncology clinics at a single centre (The Royal Marsden, UK). This represented 36% of all ovarian cancer patients offered BRCA testing in the oncology clinics at the centre. Feedback from patients and nurses was encouraging with no significant issues raised in the counselling and consenting process. CONCLUSION: The mainstreaming model allows for greater access to BRCA testing for ovarian cancer patients, many of whom may benefit from personalised therapy (PARP inhibitors). This is the first report of oncology nurses in the BRCA testing pathway. Specialist oncology nurses trained in BRCA testing have an important role within a multidisciplinary team counselling and consenting patients to undergo BRCA testing.