Towards implementation of comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction tools in health care for personalised prevention.

Advances in knowledge about breast cancer risk factors have led to the development of more comprehensive risk models. These integrate information on a variety of risk factors such as lifestyle, genetics, family history, and breast density. These risk models have the potential to deliver more personalised breast cancer prevention. This is through improving accuracy of risk estimates, enabling more effective targeting of preventive options and creating novel prevention pathways through enabling risk estimation in a wider variety of populations than currently possible. The systematic use of risk tools as part of population screening programmes is one such example. A clear understanding of how such tools can contribute to the goal of personalised prevention can aid in understanding and addressing barriers to implementation. In this paper we describe how emerging models, and their associated tools can contribute to the goal of personalised healthcare for breast cancer through health promotion, early disease detection (screening) and improved management of women at higher risk of disease. We outline how addressing specific challenges on the level of communication, evidence, evaluation, regulation, and acceptance, can facilitate implementation and uptake.

Mainstreaming of genomic medicine in gastroenterology, present and future: a nationwide survey of UK gastroenterology trainees.

OBJECTIVE: Genomics and personalised medicine are increasingly relevant for patients with gastroenterological conditions. We aim to capture the current state of genomics training in gastroenterology to review current understanding, clinical experience and long-term educational needs of UK trainees. DESIGN AND SETTING: A web-based nationwide survey of all UK gastroenterology specialty trainees was conducted in 2017. RESULTS: 100 trainees (14% of UK gastroenterology trainees) completed this survey. Only 9% and 16% of respondents believe that their local training programme adequately prepares them for the future clinical practice using genomic medicine and personalised medicine, respectively. Barriers identified include the need for greater trainee education (95%), inadequate clinical guidance to base interventions on the results of genomic testing (53%), concerns over misinterpretation by patients (43%) and overuse/misuse of testing by clinicians (34%).Survey respondents felt prepared to perform HFE genotyping (98%), assess TPMT status (97%) and interpret HLA subtyping for suspected coeliac disease (85%). However, only a minority felt prepared to perform the following investigations: polyposis screening (34%), hereditary pancreatitis screening (30%), testing for Lynch yndrome (33%) and KRAS testing for colorectal cancer (20%).Most respondents would support holding dedicated training days on genomic medicine (83%), formal training provisions for the mainstreaming of genomic testing (64%), an update to the UK gastroenterology specialty training curriculum and examinations (57%) and better-defined referral pathways for local genomic services (91%). CONCLUSION: Most gastroenterology trainees in this survey feel ill equipped to practise genomic and personalised medicine as consultants. We propose specific revisions to the UK gastroenterology specialty curriculum that addresses trainees needs.

Risk stratification, genomic data and the law.

Risk prediction models have a key role in stratified disease prevention, and the incorporation of genomic data into these models promises more effective personalisation. Although the clinical utility of incorporating genomic data into risk prediction tools is increasingly compelling, at least for some applications and disease types, the legal and regulatory implications have not been examined and have been overshadowed by discussions about clinical and scientific utility and feasibility. We held a workshop to explore relevant legal and regulatory perspectives from four EU Member States: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. While we found no absolute prohibition on the use of such data in those tools, there are considerable challenges. Currently, these are modest and result from genomic data being classified as sensitive data under existing Data Protection regulation. However, these challenges will increase in the future following the implementation of EU Regulations on data protection which take effect in 2018, and reforms to the governance of the manufacture, development and use of in vitro diagnostic devices to be implemented in 2022. Collectively these will increase the regulatory burden placed on these products as risk stratification tools will be brought within the scope of these new Regulations. The failure to respond to the challenges posed by the use of genomic data in disease risk stratification tools could therefore prove costly to those developing and using such tools.

Implications of using whole genome sequencing to test unselected populations for high risk breast cancer genes: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The decision to test for high risk breast cancer gene mutations is traditionally based on risk scores derived from age, family and personal cancer history. Next generation sequencing technologies such as whole genome sequencing (WGS) make wider population testing more feasible. In the UK's 100,000 Genomes Project, mutations in 16 genes including BRCA1 and BRCA2 are to be actively sought regardless of clinical presentation. The implications of deploying this approach at scale for patients and clinical services are unclear. In this study we aimed to model the effect of using WGS to test an unselected UK population for high risk BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene variants to inform the debate around approaches to secondary genomic findings. METHODS: We modelled the test performance of WGS for identifying pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in an unselected hypothetical population of 100,000 UK women, using published literature to derive model input parameters. We calculated analytic and clinical validity, described potential health outcomes and highlighted current areas of uncertainty. We also performed a sensitivity analysis in which we re-ran the model 100,000 times to investigate the effect of varying input parameters. RESULTS: In our models WGS was predicted to identify correctly 93 pathogenic BRCA1 mutations and 151 BRCA2 mutations in 120 and 200 women respectively, resulting in an analytic sensitivity of 75.5-77.5 %. Of 244 women with identified pathogenic mutations, we estimated that 132 (range 121-198) would develop breast cancer, so could potentially be helped by intervention. We also predicted that breast cancer would occur in 41 women (range 36-62) incorrectly identified with no pathogenic mutations and in 12,460 women without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. There was considerable uncertainty about the penetrance of mutations in people without a family history of disease and the appropriate threshold of absolute disease risk for clinical action, which impacts on judgements about the clinical utility of intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This simple model demonstrates the need for robust processes to support the testing for secondary genomic findings in unselected populations that acknowledge levels of uncertainty about the clinical validity and clinical utility of testing positive for a cancer risk gene.

Do Health Professionals Need Additional Competencies for Stratified Cancer Prevention Based on Genetic Risk Profiling?

There is growing evidence that inclusion of genetic information about known common susceptibility variants may enable population risk-stratification and personalized prevention for common diseases including cancer. This would require the inclusion of genetic testing as an integral part of individual risk assessment of an asymptomatic individual. Front line health professionals would be expected to interact with and assist asymptomatic individuals through the risk stratification process. In that case, additional knowledge and skills may be needed. Current guidelines and frameworks for genetic competencies of non-specialist health professionals place an emphasis on rare inherited genetic diseases. For common diseases, health professionals do use risk assessment tools but such tools currently do not assess genetic susceptibility of individuals. In this article, we compare the skills and knowledge needed by non-genetic health professionals, if risk-stratified prevention is implemented, with existing competence recommendations from the UK, USA and Europe, in order to assess the gaps in current competences. We found that health professionals would benefit from understanding the contribution of common genetic variations in disease risk, the rationale for a risk-stratified prevention pathway, and the implications of using genomic information in risk-assessment and risk management of asymptomatic individuals for common disease prevention.

Systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the birth prevalence of five inherited metabolic diseases.

Many newborn screening programmes now use tandem mass spectrometry in order to screen for a variety of diseases. However, countries have embraced this technology with a differing pace of change and for different conditions. This has been facilitated by the ability of this diagnostic method to limit analysis to specific metabolites of interest, enabling targeted screening for particular conditions. MS/MS was introduced in 2009 in England to implement newborn bloodspot screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency (MCADD) raising the possibility of screening for other inherited metabolic disorders. Recently, a pilot screening programme was conducted in order to evaluate the health and economic consequences of screening for five additional inherited metabolic disorders in England. As part of this study we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the birth prevalence of these conditions: maple syrup urine disease, homocystinuria (pyridoxine unresponsive), glutaric aciduria type I, isovaleric acidaemia and long-chain 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency including trifunctional protein deficiency. We identified a total of 99 studies that were able to provide information on the prevalence of one or more of the disorders. The vast majority of studies were of screening programmes with some reporting on clinically detected cases.

What ethical and legal principles should guide the genotyping of children as part of a personalised screening programme for common cancer?

Increased knowledge of the gene-disease associations contributing to common cancer development raises the prospect of population stratification by genotype and other risk factors. Individual risk assessments could be used to target interventions such as screening, treatment and health education. Genotyping neonates, infants or young children as part of a systematic programme would improve coverage and uptake, and facilitate a screening package that maximises potential benefits and minimises harms including overdiagnosis. This paper explores the potential justifications and risks of genotyping children for genetic variants associated with common cancer development within a personalised screening programme. It identifies the ethical and legal principles that might guide population genotyping where the predictive value of the testing is modest and associated risks might arise in the future, and considers the standards required by population screening programme validity measures (such as the Wilson and Jungner criteria including cost-effectiveness and equitable access). These are distinguished from the normative principles underpinning predictive genetic testing of children for adult-onset diseases-namely, to make best-interests judgements and to preserve autonomy. While the case for population-based genotyping of neonates or young children has not yet been made, the justifications for this approach are likely to become increasingly compelling. A modified evaluative and normative framework should be developed, capturing elements from individualistic and population-based approaches. This should emphasise proper communication and genuine parental consent or informed choice, while recognising the challenges associated with making unsolicited approaches to an asymptomatic group. Such a framework would be strengthened by complementary empirical research.

Life insurance: genomic stratification and risk classification.

With the development and increasing accessibility of new genomic tools such as next-generation sequencing, genome-wide association studies, and genomic stratification models, the debate on genetic discrimination in the context of life insurance became even more complex, requiring a review of current practices and the exploration of new scenarios. In this perspective, a multidisciplinary group of international experts representing different interests revisited the genetics and life insurance debate during a 2-day symposium 'Life insurance: breast cancer research and genetic risk prediction seminar' held in Quebec City, Canada on 24 and 25 September 2012. Having reviewed the current legal, social, and ethical issues on the use of genomic information in the context of life insurance, the Expert Group identified four main questions: (1) Have recent developments in genomics and related sciences changed the contours of the genetics and life insurance debate? (2) Are genomic results obtained in a research context relevant for life insurance underwriting? (3) Should predictive risk assessment and risk stratification models based on genomic data also be used for life insurance underwriting? (4) What positive actions could stakeholders in the debate take to alleviate concerns over the use of genomic information by life insurance underwriters? This paper presents a summary of the discussions and the specific action items recommended by the Expert Group.

Familial hypercholesterolaemia: a pressing issue for European health care.

The recent European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines for the management of familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) succinctly reiterate the under-diagnosis and poor management of this common genetic disorder, which is associated with greatly increased mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD), especially in young people. The prevalence of FH is thought to be between 1/500 and 1/200, and thus in Europe 1.8-4.5 million individuals have FH. In most European countries including the UK, fewer than 15% of cases have been identified to date, amounting to over 100,000 undiagnosed cases in the UK alone. There are a number of issues that have impeded the implementation of FH diagnostic and management guidelines in Europe; here, we briefly review the current situation in the UK, and propose ways to start to break down implementation barriers that may be applicable across Europe. Despite guidelines by the UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) published in 2008 that recommend genetic testing of index cases and cascade screening of their family members, and the recent NICE Quality Standards for management of FH (QS41), there has been little action towards systematic diagnosis in England despite implementation of systematic screening programmes in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and in other selected countries in Europe. This is surprising because early treatment with statins provides an effective and cheap treatment that reduces mortality to near that found in the normolipidaemic population. With increasing emphasis on preventive medicine and genetic diagnosis across the medical specialties, FH is a clear example of how new genome technologies can - and should - be deployed now for the benefit of patients.

Public health implications from COGS and potential for risk stratification and screening.

The PHG Foundation led a multidisciplinary program, which used results from COGS research identifying genetic variants associated with breast, ovarian and prostate cancers to model risk-stratified prevention for breast and prostate cancers. Implementing such strategies would require attention to the use and storage of genetic information, the development of risk assessment tools, new protocols for consent and programs of professional education and public engagement.

Incorporating genomics into breast and prostate cancer screening: assessing the implications.

Individual risk prediction and stratification based on polygenic profiling may be useful in disease prevention. Risk-stratified population screening based on multiple factors including a polygenic risk profile has the potential to be more efficient than age-stratified screening. In this article, we summarize the implications of personalized screening for breast and prostate cancers. We report the opinions of multidisciplinary international experts who have explored the scientific, ethical, and logistical aspects of stratified screening. We have identified (i) the need to recognize the benefits and harms of personalized screening as compared with existing screening methods, (ii) that the use of genetic data highlights complex ethical issues including discrimination against high-risk individuals by insurers and employers and patient autonomy in relation to genetic testing of minors, (iii) the need for transparency and clear communication about risk scores, about harms and benefits, and about reasons for inclusion and exclusion from the risk-based screening process, and (iv) the need to develop new professional competences and to assess cost-effectiveness and acceptability of stratified screening programs before implementation. We conclude that health professionals and stakeholders need to consider the implications of incorporating genetic information in intervention strategies for health-care planning in the future.

A framework for the prioritization of investment in the provision of genetic tests.

BACKGROUND: The UK Genetic Testing Network (UKGTN) established a process for the evaluation of genetic tests for entry onto the National Health Service (NHS) Directory of Molecular Genetic Testing. The Network requested the development and piloting of a prioritization framework that could be used for the commissioning of genetic tests by the NHS. METHODS: A selected working group developed and piloted a multi-criteria prioritization process using 10 genetic tests evaluated by the UKGTN. RESULTS: The framework was able to rank the 10 genetic tests used in the pilot. The rankings were also consistent with the commissioning recommendations for these genetic tests by the UKGTN. CONCLUSION: A set of criteria for the prioritization of genetic tests has been developed. The results from the pilot suggest that the methodology is valid and robust but requires considerable resources to implement. Further development of the process is needed before the framework could be used to influence commissioning decisions for clinical genetic services in the NHS.

Genetics in ophthalmology: equity in service provision?

BACKGROUND: Scientific advances in the understanding of the molecular biology of inherited eye conditions now allow more effective diagnosis and management for patients and families. For translation into clinical practice, it is vital that specialist services are developed with the necessary multi-disciplinary expertise, investigatory resources and organizational arrangements. We investigate the equity of specialist provision in the UK and make recommendations for service development. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was carried out of all providers of specialist genetic services in the UK. Results were analysed by provider, catchment population and Strategic Health Authority population. RESULTS: Nineteen specialist services were identified. Provision of annual out-patient clinics and medical consultant sessions varied widely with many small services lacking full multi-disciplinary teams. There was an 8-fold regional variation in patient activity. Across the UK, we estimated an annual shortfall of 1000 new patient referrals. CONCLUSIONS: There should be a national programme of strategic planning of specialist genetic ophthalmology services. Necessary elements will include service specifications and standards, overall number and configuration of services, models which maximize the efficiency of use of specialist genetics elements and education of specialist and general ophthalmologists in genetics elements of their specialty.

Competences, education and support for new roles in cancer genetics services: outcomes from the cancer genetics pilot projects.

In 2004 the Department of Health in collaboration with Macmillan Cancer Support set up service development projects to pilot the integration of genetics in mainstream medicine in the area of cancer genetics.In developing these services, new roles and responsibilities were devised that required supporting programmes of education and training. The NHS National Genetics Education and Development Centre has worked with the projects to draw together their experience in these aspects. New roles include the Cancer Family Nurse Specialist, in which a nurse working in a cancer setting was trained to identify and manage genetic or family history concerns, and the Genetic Risk Assessment Practitioner--a small team of practitioners working within a secondary care setting to deliver a standardised risk assessment pathway. Existing roles were also adapted for a different setting, in particular the use of genetic counsellors working in a community ethnic minority setting. These practitioners undertook a range of clinical activities that can be mapped directly to the 'UK National Workforce Competences for Genetics in Clinical Practice for Non-genetics Healthcare Staff' framework developed by Skills for Health and the NHS National Genetics Education and Development Centre (2007; draft competence framework). The main differences between the various roles were in the ordering of genetic tests and the provision of advice on invasive preventive options such as mastectomy. Those involved in service development also needed to develop competences in project management, business skills, audit and evaluation, working with users, general management (personnel, multi-agency work and marketing), educational supervision, IT, public and professional outreach, and research. Important resources to support the development of new roles and competences included pathways and guidelines, a formal statement of competences, a recognised syllabus, appropriate and timely courses, the availability of a mentor, supervision and opportunities to discuss cases, a formal assessment of learning and continuing support from specialist genetics services. This represents a current resource gap that will be of concern to cancer networks and a challenge to providers of educational resources and regional genetics services.

Genetics education for nurses, midwives and health visitors.

Advances in genetic science are leading to new roles for nurses, midwives and other front-line health professionals. But current educational provision on genetics is insufficient to enable practitioners to develop the knowledge and skills they need. The Department of Health and The Wellcome Trust are jointly funding the development of a strategy to address the problem.