Neurofibromatosis- and schwannomatosis-associated tumors: Approaches to genetic testing and counseling considerations.

Neurofibromatosis (NF) and schwannomatosis (SWN) are genetic conditions characterized by the risk of developing nervous system tumors. Recently revised diagnostic criteria include the addition of genetic testing to confirm a pathogenic variant, as well as to detect the presence of mosaicism. Therefore, the use and interpretation of both germline and tumor-based testing have increasing importance in the diagnostic approach, treatment decisions, and risk stratification of these conditions. This focused review discusses approaches to genetic testing of NF- and SWN-related tumor types, which are somewhat rare and perhaps lesser known to non-specialized clinicians. These include gastrointestinal stromal tumors, breast cancer, plexiform neurofibromas with or without transformation to malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, gliomas, and schwannomas, and emphasizes the need for inclusion of genetic providers in patient care and appropriate pre- and post-test education, genetic counseling, and focused evaluation by a medical geneticist or other healthcare provider familiar with clinical manifestations of these disorders.

Exploring United States genetic counselor and healthcare interpreter perspectives: Allocation of roles within the genetic counseling encounter.

Genetic counselors (GCs) and healthcare interpreters (HIs) are key members of the healthcare team when providing genetic counseling services to patients with Limited English Proficiency (LEP); however, the working relationship between GCs and HIs and the role each member plays within a genetic counseling session is unclear. Previous studies assessing this relationship have been qualitative and limited in sample size (Agather et al., 2018, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26, 1388; Krieger et al., 2018, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26, 1388; Lara-Otero et al., 2019, Health Communication, 34, 1608; Rosenbaum et al., 2020, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 29, 352). This study utilized a quantitative approach to allow for sampling of larger populations and to simultaneously understand current perspectives of GCs and HIs regarding each other's and their own roles within a genetic counseling session. GC and HI participants from the United States were recruited via email to complete an online survey with questions regarding interactions prior to a session, roles during a session, and opportunities for collaboration and constraints in the working relationship. Descriptive and inferential statistics were utilized to analyze responses of GCs and HIs. 130 GC and 40 HI participants were included in this study. There were statistically significant differences (p < .001) in responses between GC and HI participants on the expected distribution of roles during a session in advocacy, psychosocial and cultural domains. Additionally, this study identified that HI desired resources and training regarding genetics and genetic counseling are currently not being met. To our knowledge, this is the largest study to simultaneously survey GC and HI perspectives on these topics. Our findings suggest the need for greater communication and collaboration between GCs and HIs to ensure high-quality care for patients with LEP. Integrating a pre-session meeting between the GC and HI for sessions with patients with LEP and increasing education for GCs and HIs on the roles each group brings into a session is warranted to optimize this collaborative relationship and patient care.

Longitudinal follow-up after telephone disclosure in the randomized COGENT study.

PURPOSE: To better understand the longitudinal risks and benefits of telephone disclosure of genetic test results in the era of multigene panel testing. METHODS: Adults who were proceeding with germline cancer genetic testing were randomized to telephone disclosure (TD) with a genetic counselor or in-person disclosure (IPD) (i.e., usual care) of test results. All participants who received TD were recommended to return to meet with a physician to discuss medical management recommendations. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-three participants were randomized to TD and 497 to IPD. There were no differences between arms for any cognitive, affective, or behavioral outcomes at 6 and 12 months. Only 50% of participants in the TD arm returned for the medical follow-up appointment. Returning was associated with site (p < 0.0001), being female (p = 0.047), and not having a true negative result (p < 0.002). Mammography was lower at 12 months among those who had TD and did not return for medical follow-up (70%) compared with those who had TD and returned (86%) and those who had IPD (87%, adjusted p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Telephone disclosure of genetic test results is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure, but attention to medical follow-up may remain important for optimizing appropriate use of genetic results.

Interpreters' perceptions of culture bumps in genetic counseling.

Culture bump theory provides a practical and goal-oriented framework for addressing cultural differences that can impact communication and patient care. Differences in language and culture, coupled with a lack of knowledge or competency regarding these differences, often contribute to 'culture bumps' between healthcare providers and patients. Interpreters serve the unique role of 'cultural brokers', going beyond bridging the linguistic divide to close cultural gaps. Research from the perspective of interpreters focused on culture bumps and cultural competency within genetic counseling sessions is lacking. We aimed to assess interpreters' experiences with significant 'culture bumps' in genetic counseling sessions, obtain interpreters' perspectives regarding genetic counselors' gaps in cultural competency, and explore interpreters' perceptions of the impact of cultural competency on the genetic counseling sessions. Spanish and Polish interpreters experienced in working in person with genetic counselors were recruited through interpreter supervisors at medical centers, hospitals, and interpreter training and service agencies in the Chicagoland area. Using a semi-structured interview guide, phone interviews were conducted with eligible participants and transcribed verbatim. A codebook was developed between two coders, and inter-rater reliability was assessed (κ = 0.82). Grounded theory was used as a guiding principle to code data. The results of this study revealed significant culture bumps identified by interpreters in genetic counseling sessions in the areas of exchange of information, gender and family dynamics, and incorporation of religious and faith beliefs. Interpreters identified the impact on rapport, both negative and positive, due to gaps and strengths in cultural competency, respectively. These responses offer useful insight for training and providing practicing genetic counselors with tools to promote cultural competency, in order to provide optimal care for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). Further research is necessary to explore these concepts within other languages and cultures, as well as to determine the most appropriate methods for implementing these suggestions for improvement.

Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study.

Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in-person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in-person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in-person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in-person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in-person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer-specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer-specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in-person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in-person disclosure should be honored when possible.

Low Referral Rate for Genetic Testing in Racially and Ethnically Diverse Patients Despite Universal Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines recommend that all colorectal tumors be assessed for mismatch repair deficiency, which could increase identification of patients with Lynch syndrome. This is of particular importance for minority populations, in whom hereditary syndromes are under diagnosed. We compared rates and outcomes of testing all tumor samples (universal testing) collected from a racially and ethnically diverse population for features of Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of colorectal tumors tested from 2012 through 2016 at 4 academic centers. Tumor samples were collected from 767 patients with colorectal cancer (52% non-Hispanic white [NHW], 26% African American, and 17% Hispanic patients). We assessed rates of tumor testing, recommendations for genetic evaluation, rates of attending a genetic evaluation, and performance of germline testing overall and by race/ethnicity. We performed univariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 92% of colorectal tumors were analyzed for mismatch repair deficiency without significant differences among races/ethnicities. However, minority patients were significantly less likely to be referred for genetic evaluation (21.2% for NHW patients vs 16.9% for African American patients and 10.9% for Hispanic patients; P = .02). Rates of genetic testing were also lower among minority patients (10.7% for NHW patients vs 6.0% for AA patients and 3.1% for Hispanic patients; P < .01). On multivariate analysis, African American race, older age, and medical center were independently associated with lack of referral for genetic evaluation and genetic testing. CONCLUSION: In a retrospective analysis, we found that despite similar rates of colorectal tumor analysis, minority patients are less likely to be recommended for genetic evaluation or to undergo germline testing for Lynch syndrome. Improvements in institutional practices in follow up after tumor testing could reduce barriers to diagnosis of Lynch diagnosis in minorities.

Prevalence of Germline Findings Among Tumors From Cancer Types Lacking Hereditary Testing Guidelines.

Importance: Germline testing guidelines are suggested for specific disease types or a family history of cancer, yet alterations are found in cancer types in which germline testing is not routinely indicated. The clinical role of identifying germline variants in these populations is valuable to patients and their at-risk relatives. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of germline findings in patients undergoing tumor/normal matched sequencing among cancer types lacking guidelines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study took place on August 18, 2021, and included data from deidentified records of patients tested, using the Tempus xT tumor/normal matched approach from November 2017 to August 2021. Records included in this study were from 34 642 patients treated in geographically diverse oncology practices in the US with a diagnosis of any of the following cancers: bladder, brain, lung, esophagus, cholangiocarcinoma, head and neck, breast, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, endometrial, and colorectal. Main Outcomes and Measures: The rate of germline findings (ie, single-nucleotide variants and small insertions or deletions) detected in 50 reportable hereditary cancer genes was calculated for cancer types lacking guidelines for germline testing (bladder, brain, lung, esophagus, cholangiocarcinoma, and head and neck) and cancer types for which germline testing is frequently performed (breast, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, endometrial, and colorectal). Same-gene second somatic hits were assessed to provide a comprehensive assessment on genomic drivers. Results: Of 34 642 patients, 18 888 were female (54.5%); of 27 498 patients whose age at diagnosis was known, mean (SD) age was 62.23 (3.36) years. A total of 2534 of 34 642 patients (7.3%) harbored pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants. Within the tumor types lacking testing guidelines, germline mutations were at 6.6% (79/1188) in bladder cancer and 5.8% (448/7668) in lung cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: This study may present the largest retrospective analysis to date of deidentified real-world data from patients diagnosed with advanced cancer with tumor/normal matched sequencing data and the prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants in cancer types lacking hereditary cancer testing guidelines. The findings suggest there may be clinical implications for patients and their at-risk family members in cancers for which germline assessment primarily based on the cancer diagnosis is rarely obtained.

No Evidence of Increased Risk of Breast Cancer in Women With Lynch Syndrome Identified by Multigene Panel Testing.

PURPOSE: Prior estimates of breast cancer risk in women with Lynch syndrome (LS) range from population risk to 18-fold increased risk with reported differences by gene. Here, breast cancer rates were determined in a large cohort of women with pathogenic variants (PVs) in a mismatch repair (MMR) gene detected through multigene panel testing and compared with rates in the US population and women undergoing panel testing. METHODS: MMR gene PV carriers were identified among women tested for suspicion of LS or hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) who met inclusion criteria. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% CIs of breast cancer were calculated compared with age-matched incidence in the general US female population and with women negative for PVs stratified by the test indication. RESULTS: In total, 0.8% of women (30,362 of 441,966 women) carried MMR gene PVs. PVs in PMS2 (37.5%) and MSH6 (29.3%) were more common than in MLH1 (13.7%) and MSH2/EPCAM (19.4%). Women with PVs in PMS2 and MSH6 were tested more frequently for HBOC, whereas those with PVs in MLH1 and MSH2/EPCAM were tested more frequently for LS. Breast cancer rates in women with LS were lower than those in the general female population (SIR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.96) and did not differ compared with women with negative panel testing for HBOC (SIR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.99) or LS (SIR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.30). CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of women with LS identified through panel testing, there was no evidence for increased risk of breast cancer compared with the general US population or women undergoing panel testing. These findings support average-risk breast cancer screening in women with LS.

Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer Position statement on multigene panel testing for patients with colorectal cancer and/or polyposis.

Multigene panel tests for hereditary cancer syndromes are increasingly utilized in the care of colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyposis patients. However, widespread availability of panels raises a number of questions including which patients should undergo testing, which genes should be included on panels, and the settings in which panels should be ordered and interpreted. To address this knowledge gap, key questions regarding the major issues encountered in clinical evaluation of hereditary CRC and polyposis were designed by the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer Position Statement Committee and leadership. A literature search was conducted to address these questions. Recommendations were based on the best available evidence and expert opinion. This position statement addresses which genes should be included on a multigene panel for a patient with a suspected hereditary CRC or polyposis syndrome, proposes updated genetic testing criteria, discusses testing approaches for patients with mismatch repair proficient or deficient CRC, and outlines the essential elements for ordering and disclosing multigene panel test results. We acknowledge that critical gaps in access, insurance coverage, resources, and education remain barriers to high-quality, equitable care for individuals and their families at increased risk of hereditary CRC.

Risk Assessment and Genetic Testing for Inherited Gastrointestinal Syndromes.

A number of inherited syndromes affect the gastrointestinal tract, including Lynch syndrome and other hereditary colorectal cancers, hereditary polyposis, hereditary gastric cancer, hereditary pancreatic cancer, and hereditary pancreatitis. Recognition and diagnosis of these syndromes are paramount because affected individuals and family members can be offered life-saving screening, risk-reducing surgeries, and other therapies. Genetic counseling and testing are critical components of risk assessment and diagnosis of inherited syndromes. With the advent of next-generation sequencing, multigene panels have significantly changed the practice of genetic counseling and testing. Gastroenterology providers interface with patients who are at risk for inherited gastrointestinal syndromes; thus, providers should learn to recognize these syndromes and know when to refer their patients. Additionally, gastroenterology providers should have an understanding of genetic counseling and be able to interpret multigene panel test results. This article provides an overview of and practical tips for the assessment and diagnosis of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes and pancreatitis.

Clinical interpretation of pathogenic ATM and CHEK2 variants on multigene panel tests: navigating moderate risk.

Comprehensive genomic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) helps patients, family members, and providers make informed choices about cancer screening, surgical and chemotherapeutic risk reduction, and genetically targeted cancer therapies. The increasing availability of multigene panel tests for clinical applications allows testing of well-defined high-risk genes, as well as moderate-risk genes, for which the penetrance and spectrum of cancer risk are less well characterized. Moderate-risk genes are defined as genes that, when altered by a pathogenic variant, confer a 2 to fivefold relative risk of cancer. Two such genes included on many comprehensive cancer panels are the DNA repair genes ATM and CHEK2, best known for moderately increased risk of breast cancer development. However, the impact of screening and preventative interventions and spectrum of cancer risk beyond breast cancer associated with ATM and/or CHEK2 variants remain less well characterized. We convened a large, multidisciplinary, cross-sectional panel of GCRA clinicians to review challenging, peer-submitted cases of patients identified with ATM or CHEK2 variants. This paper summarizes the inter-professional case discussion and recommendations generated during the session, the level of concordance with respect to recommendations between the academic and community clinician participants for each case, and potential barriers to implementing recommended care in various practice settings.

Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Clinical Multigene Panel Testing for Cancer Susceptibility in the Multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone Study.

PURPOSE: Multigene panels (MGPs) are increasingly being used despite questions regarding their clinical utility and no standard approach to genetic counseling. How frequently genetic providers use MGP testing and how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) differ from targeted testing (eg, BRCA1/2 only) are unknown. METHODS: We evaluated use of MGP testing and PROs in participants undergoing cancer genetic testing in the multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ), a randomized study of telephone versus in-person disclosure of genetic test results. PROs included genetic knowledge, general and state anxiety, depression, cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and satisfaction. Genetic providers offered targeted or MGP testing based on clinical assessment. RESULTS: Since the inclusion of MGP testing in 2014, 395 patients (66%) were offered MGP testing. MGP testing increased over time from 57% in 2014 to 66% in 2015 (P = .02) and varied by site (46% to 78%; P < .01). Being offered MGP testing was significantly associated with not having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, having a history of cancer, not having a mutation in the family, not having made a treatment decision, and study site. After demographic adjustment, patients offered MGP testing had lower general anxiety (P = .04), state anxiety (P = .03), depression (P = .04), and uncertainty (P = .05) pre-disclosure compared with patients offered targeted testing. State anxiety (P = .05) and cancer-specific distress (P = .05) were lower at disclosure in the MGP group. There was a greater increase in change in uncertainty (P = .04) among patients who underwent MGP testing. CONCLUSION: MGP testing was more frequently offered to patients with lower anxiety, depression, and uncertainty and was associated with favorable outcomes, with the exception of a greater increase in uncertainty compared with patients who had targeted testing. Addressing uncertainty may be important as MGP testing is increasingly adopted.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results.

Background: Germline genetic testing is standard practice in oncology. Outcomes of telephone disclosure of a wide range of cancer genetic test results, including multigene panel testing (MGPT) are unknown. Methods: Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone disclosure (TD) of genetic test results with usual care, in-person disclosure (IPD) after tiered-binned in-person pretest counseling. Primary noninferiority outcomes included change in knowledge, state anxiety, and general anxiety. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific distress, depression, uncertainty, satisfaction, and screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions. To declare noninferiority, we calculated the 98.3% one-sided confidence interval of the standardized effect; t tests were used for secondary subgroup analyses. Only noninferiority tests were one-sided, others were two-sided. Results: A total of 1178 patients enrolled in the study. Two hundred eight (17.7%) participants declined random assignment due to a preference for in-person disclosure; 473 participants were randomly assigned to TD and 497 to IPD; 291 (30.0%) had MGPT. TD was noninferior to IPD for general and state anxiety and all secondary outcomes immediately postdisclosure. TD did not meet the noninferiority threshold for knowledge in the primary analysis, but it did meet the threshold in the multiple imputation analysis. In secondary analyses, there were no statistically significant differences between arms in screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions, and no statistically significant differences in outcomes by arm among those who had MGPT. In subgroup analyses, patients with a positive result had statistically significantly greater decreases in general anxiety with telephone disclosure (TD -0.37 vs IPD +0.87, P = .02). Conclusions: Even in the era of multigene panel testing, these data suggest that telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is as an alternative to in-person disclosure for interested patients after in-person pretest counseling with a genetic counselor.

Evaluation of laboratory perspectives on hereditary cancer panels.

Genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer susceptibility is a rapidly evolving field and partly a result of next-generation sequencing (NGS) allowing analysis of multiple cancer susceptibility genes simultaneously. This qualitative study explored laboratory perspectives on hereditary cancer panels. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of clinical laboratories offering hereditary cancer panels via NGS. Several themes emerged from the responses pertaining to hereditary cancer panel development, the importance of communication of panel properties with patients, variant reporting policies, and the future of hereditary cancer gene testing. Clinical utility was discussed as primary consideration during panel development. In addition, while participants indicated gene and syndrome overlap prompted panel development in general, laboratories differed in their opinions of whether phenotypic overlap warrants offering pan-cancer panels only versus cancer specific panels. Participants stressed the importance of patients understanding implications of panel testing, including what is tested for and limitations of testing. While all laboratories discussed the limitations of a variant of uncertain significance result, they differed significantly in their reporting methods. This study provides healthcare providers information on the laboratory approach to panel testing, highlighting both commonalities and differences in laboratory approaches, and may allow providers to make more informed decisions when ordering hereditary cancer panels.