Multiple Germline Events Contribute to Cancer Development in Patients with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome.

Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is an autosomal dominant cancer-predisposition disorder. Approximately 70% of individuals who fit the clinical definition of LFS harbor a pathogenic germline variant in the TP53 tumor suppressor gene. However, the remaining 30% of patients lack a TP53 variant and even among variant TP53 carriers, approximately 20% remain cancer-free. Understanding the variable cancer penetrance and phenotypic variability in LFS is critical to developing rational approaches to accurate, early tumor detection and risk-reduction strategies. We leveraged family-based whole-genome sequencing and DNA methylation to evaluate the germline genomes of a large, multi-institutional cohort of patients with LFS (n = 396) with variant (n = 374) or wildtype TP53 (n = 22). We identified alternative cancer-associated genetic aberrations in 8/14 wildtype TP53 carriers who developed cancer. Among variant TP53 carriers, 19/49 who developed cancer harbored a pathogenic variant in another cancer gene. Modifier variants in the WNT signaling pathway were associated with decreased cancer incidence. Furthermore, we leveraged the noncoding genome and methylome to identify inherited epimutations in genes including ASXL1, ETV6, and LEF1 that confer increased cancer risk. Using these epimutations, we built a machine learning model that can predict cancer risk in patients with LFS with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.725 (0.633-0.810). Significance: Our study clarifies the genomic basis for the phenotypic variability in LFS and highlights the immense benefits of expanding genetic and epigenetic testing of patients with LFS beyond TP53. More broadly, it necessitates the dissociation of hereditary cancer syndromes as single gene disorders and emphasizes the importance of understanding these diseases in a holistic manner as opposed to through the lens of a single gene.

Great expectations: patients' preferences for clinically significant results from genomic sequencing.

We aimed to describe patient preferences for a broad range of secondary findings (SF) from genomic sequencing (GS) and factors driving preferences. We assessed preference data within a trial of the Genomics ADvISER, (SF decision aid) among adult cancer patients. Participants could choose from five categories of SF: (1) medically actionable; (2) polygenic risks; (3) rare diseases; (4) early-onset neurological diseases; and (5) carrier status. We analyzed preferences using descriptive statistics and drivers of preferences using multivariable logistic regression models. The 133 participants were predominantly European (74%) or East Asian or mixed ancestry (13%), female (90%), and aged > 50 years old (60%). The majority chose to receive SF. 97% (129/133) chose actionable findings with 36% (48/133) choosing all 5 categories. Despite the lack of medical actionability, participants were interested in receiving SF of polygenic risks (74%), carrier status (75%), rare diseases (59%), and early-onset neurologic diseases (53%). Older participants were more likely to be interested in receiving results for early-onset neurological diseases, while those exhibiting lower decisional conflict were more likely to select all categories. Our results highlight a disconnect between cancer patient preferences and professional guidelines on SF, such as ACMG's recommendations to only return medically actionable secondary findings. In addition to clinical evidence, future guidelines should incorporate patient preferences.

The risks of cancer in older women with BRCA pathogenic variants: How far have we come?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to estimate the cumulative risks of all cancers in women from 50 to 75 years of age with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant. METHODS: Participants were women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants from 85 centers in 16 countries. Women were eligible if they had no cancer before the age of 50 years. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and follow-up questionnaires every 2 years. Women were followed from age 50 until a diagnosis of cancer, death, age 75, or last follow-up. The risk of all cancers combined from age 50 to 75 was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: There were 2211 women included (1470 BRCA1 and 742 BRCA2). There were 379 cancers diagnosed in the cohort between 50 and 75 years. The actuarial risk of any cancer from age 50 to 75 was 49% for BRCA1 and 43% for BRCA2. Breast (n = 186) and ovarian (n = 45) were the most frequent cancers observed. For women who had both risk-reducing mastectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy before age 50, the risk of developing any cancer between age 50 and 75 was 9%. CONCLUSION: Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant have a high risk of cancer between the ages of 50 and 75 years and should be counselled appropriately.

Impact of Geriatric Assessment and Management on Quality of Life, Unplanned Hospitalizations, Toxicity, and Survival for Older Adults With Cancer: The Randomized 5C Trial.

PURPOSE: American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends that older adults with cancer being considered for chemotherapy receive geriatric assessment (GA) and management (GAM), but few randomized controlled trials have examined its impact on quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 5C study was a two-group parallel 1:1 single-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial of GAM for 6 months versus usual oncologic care. Eligible patients were age 70+ years, diagnosed with a solid tumor, lymphoma, or myeloma, referred for first-/second-line chemotherapy or immunotherapy or targeted therapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. The primary outcome QOL was measured with the global health scale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire and analyzed with a pattern mixture model using an intent-to-treat approach (at 6 and 12 months). Secondary outcomes included functional status, grade 3-5 treatment toxicity; health care use; satisfaction; cancer treatment plan modification; and overall survival. RESULTS: From March 2018 to March 2020, 350 participants were enrolled. Mean age was 76 years and 40.3% were female. Fifty-four percent started treatment with palliative intent. Eighty-one (23.1%) patients died. GAM did not improve QOL (global QOL of 4.4 points [95% CI, 0.9 to 8.0] favoring the control arm). There was also no difference in survival, change in treatment plan, unplanned hospitalization/emergency department visits, and treatment toxicity between groups. CONCLUSION: GAM did not improve QOL. Most intervention group participants received GA on or after treatment initiation per patient request. Considering recent completed trials, GA may have benefit if completed before treatment selection. The COVID-19 pandemic may have affected our QOL outcome and intervention delivery for some participants.

Towards a Postgraduate Oncology Training Model for Family Medicine: Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Breast Oncology Rotation.

BACKGROUND: Family physicians have low knowledge and preparedness to manage patients with cancer. A breast oncology clinical rotation was developed for family medicine residents to address this gap in medical education. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: A breast oncology rotation for family residents was evaluated using a pre-post knowledge questionnaire and semi-structured interviews comparing rotation (RRs) versus non-rotation (NRRs) residents. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via a pre-post knowledge questionnaire and semi-structured interviews, respectively. ANALYSIS: Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and paired t-tests to compare pre-post-rotation knowledge and preparedness. Qualitative data were coded inductively, analysed, and grouped into categories and themes. Data sets were integrated. RESULTS: The study was terminated early due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Six RRs completed the study; 19 and 2 NRRs completed the quantitative and qualitative portions, respectively. RRs' knowledge scores did not improve, but there was a non-significant increase in preparedness (5.3 to 8.4, p = 0.17) post-rotation. RRs described important rotation outcomes: knowledge of the patient work-up, referral process, and patient treatment trajectory; skills in risk assessment, clinical examination, and empathy, and comfort in counseling. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Important educational outcomes were obtained despite no change in knowledge scores. This rotation can be adapted to other training programs including an oncology primer to enable trainee integration of new information.

A comprehensive genomic reporting structure for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary findings.

Genomic sequencing (GS) can reveal secondary findings (SFs), findings unrelated to the reason for testing, that can be overwhelming to both patients and providers. An effective approach for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary GS results is needed to effectively manage this large volume of results. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant primary and SF results. A genomic test report with accompanying patient and provider letters were developed in three phases: review of current clinical reporting practices, consulting with genetic and non-genetics experts, and iterative refinement through circulation to key stakeholders. The genomic test report and consultation letters present a myriad of clinically relevant GS results in distinct, tabulated sections, including primary (cancer) and secondary findings, with in-depth details of each finding generated from exome sequencing. They provide detailed variant and disease information, personal and familial risk assessments, clinical management details, and additional resources to help support providers and patients with implementing healthcare recommendations related to their GS results. The report and consultation letters represent a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant SFs to patients and providers, facilitating clinical management of GS results.

Genetics Adviser: a protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial evaluating a digital platform for genetics service delivery.

INTRODUCTION: The high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System (REB#20-035). Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04725565.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Exposure in Pregnancy: A Scoping Review.

Since their approval, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the standard of care for multiple malignancies. ICIs enhance tumor destruction by blocking important immunomodulatory pathways that regulate T-cell activation. These pathways include programmed cell death protein-1 and its ligands (programmed cell death protein-1 and programmed death ligand-1, respectively) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4. While blocking these pathways can enhance tumor destruction, these pathways are critical for the development of maternal tolerance towards the fetus. Therefore, if ICIs disrupt these immunomodulatory pathways, there could be a maternal immune response against the fetus, as was found in animal studies. With few reported cases of human pregnancy exposure to ICIs, the effects of ICIs on human pregnancy remain largely unknown. Here, we review and summarize the 6 cases of maternal exposure to immunotherapy that have been published before the present study. To add to the evidence, we present a case series of 2 patients who have been exposed to immunotherapy in pregnancy.

The risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with the Ashkenazi Jewish founder allele BRCA2 6174delT.

Approximately 1% of the Ashkenazi Jewish population carries the BRCA2 6174delT (c.5946del) pathogenic variant. It is important to have accurate knowledge of the risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with this specific variant so that women may be counseled accordingly. In this prospective study, we estimated the risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with the 6174delT variant compared with the risks for other pathogenic variants in the BRCA2 gene. The annual risk for developing breast cancer was significantly lower in 246 women who carried the 6174delT variant compared with 721 non-Jewish women who carried a variant at any other locus in BRCA2 (1.2% per year vs. 2.4% per year, p = 0.003). We estimated the cumulative risk of breast cancer from age 30 to 70 to be 39% for carriers of the BRCA2 6174delT variant and 61% for carriers of other BRCA2 variants. The annual risk for ovarian or fallopian tube cancer was 0.51% per year for the 233 women who carried the 6174delT variant compared to 0.22% per year for the 1128 carriers of other BRCA2 variants; the difference was not significant. Lower risks for breast cancer associated with 6174delT may not impact screening and prevention choices, however, the discussion should be based on accurate risk assessment.

Remote, proactive, telephone based management of toxicity in outpatients during adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer: pragmatic, cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of remote proactive management of toxicities during chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomised trial. SETTING: 20 cancer centres in Ontario, Canada, allocated by covariate constrained randomisation to remote management of toxicities or routine care. PARTICIPANTS: All patients starting adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer at each centre. 25 patients from each centre completed patient reported outcome questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: Proactive, standardised, nurse led telephone management of common toxicities at two time points after each chemotherapy cycle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome, cluster level mean number of visits to the emergency department or admissions to hospital per patient during the whole course of chemotherapy treatment, was evaluated with routinely available administrative healthcare data. Secondary patient reported outcomes included toxicity, self-efficacy, and quality of life. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of participants were similar in the intervention (n=944) and control arms (n=1214); 22% were older than 65 years. Penetration (that is, the percentage of patients who received the intervention at each centre) was 50-86%. Mean number of visits to the emergency department or admissions to hospital per patient was 0.91 (standard deviation 0.28) in the intervention arm and 0.94 (0.40) in the control arm (P=0.94); 47% (1014 of 2158 patients) had at least one visit to the emergency department or a hospital admission during chemotherapy. Among 580 participants who completed the patient reported outcome questionnaires, at least one grade 3 toxicity was reported by 48% (134 of 278 patients) in the intervention arm and by 58% (163 of 283) in the control arm. No differences in self-efficacy, anxiety, or depression were found. Compared with baseline, the functional assessment of cancer therapy trial outcome index decreased by 6.1 and 9.0 points in the intervention and control participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive, telephone based management of toxicities during chemotherapy did not result in fewer visits to the emergency department or hospital admissions. With the rapid rise in remote care because of the covid-19 pandemic, identifying scalable strategies for remote management of patients during cancer treatment is particularly relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02485678.

Exome and genome sequencing in adults with undiagnosed disease: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Exome and genome sequencing have been demonstrated to increase diagnostic yield in paediatric populations, improving treatment options and providing risk information for relatives. There are limited studies examining the clinical utility of these tests in adults, who currently have limited access to this technology. METHODS: Patients from adult and cancer genetics clinics across Toronto, Ontario, Canada were recruited into a prospective cohort study evaluating the diagnostic utility of exome and genome sequencing in adults. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age and suspected of having a hereditary disorder but had received previous uninformative genetic test results. In total, we examined the diagnostic utility of exome and genome sequencing in 47 probands and 34 of their relatives who consented to participate and underwent exome or genome sequencing. RESULTS: Overall, 17% (8/47) of probands had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified in a gene associated with their primary indication for testing. The diagnostic yield for patients with a cancer history was similar to the yield for patients with a non-cancer history (4/18 (22%) vs 4/29 (14%)). An additional 24 probands (51%) had an inconclusive result. Secondary findings were identified in 10 patients (21%); three had medically actionable results. CONCLUSIONS: This study lends evidence to the diagnostic utility of exome or genome sequencing in an undiagnosed adult population. The significant increase in diagnostic yield warrants the use of this technology. The identification and communication of secondary findings may provide added value when using this testing modality as a first-line test.

Breast Cancer Mortality among Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation in a Magnetic Resonance Imaging Plus Mammography Screening Program.

Annual breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus mammography is the standard of care for screening women with inherited BRCA1/2 mutations. However, long-term breast cancer-related mortality with screening is unknown. Between 1997 and June 2011, 489 previously unaffected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers aged 25 to 65 years were screened with annual MRI plus mammography on our study. Thereafter, participants were eligible to continue MRI screening through the high-risk Ontario Breast Screening Program. In 2019, our data were linked to the Ontario Cancer Registry of Cancer Care Ontario to identify all incident cancers, vital status and causes of death. Observed breast cancer mortality was compared to expected mortality for age-matched women in the general population. There were 91 women diagnosed with breast cancer (72 invasive and 19 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)) with median follow-up 7.4 (range: 0.1 to 19.2) years. Four deaths from breast cancer were observed, compared to 2.0 deaths expected (standardized mortality ratio (SMR) 2.0, p = 0.14). For the 489 women in the study, the probability of not dying of breast cancer at 20 years from the date of the first MRI was 98.2%. Annual screening with MRI plus mammography is a reasonable option for women who decline or defer risk-reducing mastectomy.

Oncology education for family medicine residents: a national needs assessment survey.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the current state of oncology education in Canadian family medicine postgraduate medical education programs (FM PGME) and examine opinions regarding optimal oncology education in these programs. METHODS: A survey was designed to evaluate ideal and current oncology teaching, educational topics, objectives, and competencies in FM PGMEs. The survey was sent to Canadian family medicine (FM) residents and program directors (PDs). RESULTS: In total, 150 residents and 17 PDs affiliated with 16 of 17 Canadian medical schools completed the survey. The majority indicated their programs do not have a mandatory clinical rotation in oncology (79% residents, 88% PDs). Low rates of residents (7%) and PDs (13%) reported FM residents being adequately prepared for their role in caring for cancer patients (p = 0.03). Residents and PDs believed the most optimal method of teaching oncology is through clinical exposure (65% residents, 80% PDs). Residents and PDs agreed the most important topics to learn (rated ≥4.7 on 5-point Likert scale) were: performing pap smears, cancer screening/prevention, breaking bad news, and approach to patient with increased cancer risk. According to residents, other important topics such as appropriate cancer patient referrals, managing cancer complications and post-treatment surveillance were only taught at frequencies of 52, 40 and 36%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Current FM PGME oncology education is suboptimal, although the degree differs in the opinion of residents and PDs. This study identified topics and methods of education which could be focussed upon to improve FM oncology education.

Association between BMI, vitamin D, and estrogen levels in postmenopausal women using adjuvant letrozole: a prospective study.

Studies have suggested that women with elevated BMI or 25-OH vitamin D levels may derive less benefit from AIs versus tamoxifen. We prospectively investigated whether high BMI or 25-OH vitamin D levels were associated with higher estrogen levels in post-menopausal women receiving standard adjuvant letrozole (2.5 mg/day). Furthermore, we evaluated whether an increased dose of letrozole resulted in lower serum estrogens in women with BMI > 25 kg/m2. Correlation between entry BMI and day 29 serum biomarkers (estrogens, 25-OH vitamin D, insulin, CRP, leptin) was assessed in all patients. On day 29, participants with BMI > 25 kg/m2 switched to letrozole 5 mg/day for 4-weeks and blood was drawn upon completion of the study. The change in serum estrogen levels was assessed in these patients (BMI > 25 kg/m2). 112 patients completed days 1-28. The Pearson correlations of estradiol and estrone with BMI or serum 25-OH vitamin D levels were near zero (-0.04 to 0.07, p = 0.48-0.69). Similar results were obtained for correlation with markers of obesity (insulin, CRP, and leptin) with estradiol and estrone (-0.15 to 0.12; p = 0.11-0.82). Thirty-one patients (BMI > 25 kg/m2) completed the interventional component; Increasing the dose of letrozole did not further reduce estradiol or estrone levels (change 0.1 and 0.4 pmol/L respectively; p = 0.74 and 0.36). There was no observed association between markers of obesity (BMI, insulin, leptin, and CRP), serum 25-OH vitamin D levels and estradiol or estrone levels. Additionally, an increased dose of letrozole did not further reduce estradiol or estrone levels compared to the standard dose.

Quality of life drives patients' preferences for secondary findings from genomic sequencing.

There is growing impetus to include measures of personal utility, the nonmedical value of information, in addition to clinical utility in health technology assessment (HTA) of genomic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS). However, personal utility and clinical utility are challenging to define and measure. This study aimed to explore what drives patients' preferences for hypothetically learning medically actionable and non-medically actionable secondary findings (SF), capturing clinical and personal utility; this may inform development of measures to evaluate patient outcomes following return of SF. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with a personal or family cancer history participating in a trial of a decision aid for selection of SF from genomic sequencing (GS) ( www.GenomicsADvISER.com ). Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. Preserving health-related and non-health-related quality of life was an overarching motivator for both learning and not learning SF. Some participants perceived that learning SF would help them "have a good quality of life" through informing actions to maintain physical health or leading to psychological benefits such as emotional preparation for disease. Other participants preferred not to learn SF because results "could ruin your quality of life," such as by causing negative psychological impacts. Measuring health-related and non-health-related quality of life may capture outcomes related to clinical and personal utility of GS and SF, which have previously been challenging to measure. Without appropriate measures, generating and synthesizing evidence to evaluate genomic technologies such as GS will continue to be a challenge, and will undervalue potential benefits of GS and SF.

Health outcomes, utility and costs of returning incidental results from genomic sequencing in a Canadian cancer population: protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Genomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03597165.

Clinical and Cost-effectiveness of a Comprehensive geriatric assessment and management for Canadian elders with Cancer-the 5C study: a study protocol for a randomised controlled phase III trial.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment and management is recommended for older adults with cancer referred for chemotherapy but no randomised controlled trial has been completed of this intervention in the oncology setting. TRIAL DESIGN: A two-group parallel single blind multi-centre randomised trial with a companion trial-based economic evaluation from both payer and societal perspectives with process evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 350 participants aged 70+, diagnosed with a solid tumour, lymphoma or myeloma, referred for first/second line chemotherapy, who speak English/French, have an Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-2 will be recruited. All participants will be followed for 12 months. INTERVENTION: Geriatric assessment and management for 6 months. The control group will receive usual oncologic care. All participants will receive a monthly healthy ageing booklet for 6 months. OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical and cost-effectiveness of geriatric assessment and management in optimising outcomes compared with usual oncology care. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be allocated to one of the two arms in a 1:1 ratio. The randomisation will be stratified by centre and treatment intent (palliative vs other). OUTCOME: Quality of life. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (1) Cost-effectiveness, (2) functional status, (3) number of geriatric issues successfully addressed, (4) grades3-5 treatment toxicity, (5) healthcare use, (6) satisfaction, (7) cancer treatment plan modification and (8) overall survival. PLANNED ANALYSIS: For the primary outcome we will use a pattern mixture model using an intent-to-treat approach (at 3, 6 and12 months). We will conduct a cost-utility analysis alongside this clinical trial. For secondary outcomes 2-4, we will use a variety of methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our study has been approved by all required REBs. We will disseminate our findings to stakeholders locally, nationally and internationally and by publishing the findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03154671.

Additional germline findings from a tumor profiling program.

BACKGROUND: Matched tumor-normal sequencing, applied in precision cancer medicine, can identify unidentified germline Medically Actionable Variants (gMAVS) in cancer predisposition genes. We report patient preferences for the return of additional germline results, and describe various gMAV scenarios delivered through a clinical genetics service. METHODS: Tumor profiling was offered to 1960 advanced cancer patients, of which 1556 underwent tumor-normal sequencing with multigene hotspot panels containing 20 cancer predisposition genes. All patients were provided with an IRB-approved consent for return of additional gMAVs. RESULTS: Of the whole cohort 94% of patients consented to be informed of additional germline results and 5% declined, with no statistically significant differences based on age, sex, race or prior genetic testing. Eight patients were found to have gMAVs in a cancer predisposition gene. Five had previously unidentified gMAVs: three in TP53 (only one fulfilled Chompret's Revised criteria for Li-Fraumeni Syndrome), one in SMARCB1 in the absence of schwannomatosis features and one a TP53 variant at low allele frequency suggesting an acquired event in blood. CONCLUSION: Interest in germline findings is high among patients who undergo tumor profiling. Disclosure of previously unidentified gMAVs present multiple challenges, thus supporting the involvement of a clinical genetics service in all tumor profiling programs.

Association of Metabolic, Inflammatory, and Tumor Markers With Circulating Tumor Cells in Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are associated with worse prognosis in metastatic breast cancer (BC). We evaluated the association of metabolic, inflammatory, and tumor markers with CTCs in women with metastatic BC before commencing a new systemic therapy. METHODS: Ninety-six patients with newly diagnosed or progressing metastatic BC without current diabetes or use of anti-inflammatory agents were recruited from four Ontario hospitals. Women provided fasting blood for measurement of metabolic, inflammatory, and tumor markers and CTCs. CTCs were assayed within 72 hours of collection using CellSearch. Other blood was frozen at -80°C, and assays were performed in a single batch. Associations between CTC counts with study factors were evaluated using Spearman correlation, and the chi-square or Fisher exact test. All statistical tests were two-sided and P value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The median age was 60.5 years; 90.6% were postmenopausal. The cohort included hormone receptor-positive (87.5%), HER2-positive (15.6%), and triple-negative (10.4%) BCs. Patients were starting firstline (35.5%), second-line (26.0%), or third-or-later-line therapy (38.5%). CTC counts (per 7.5 mL of blood) ranged from 0 to 1238 (median 2); an elevated CTC count, defined as five or more CTCs, was detected in 42 (43.8%) patients. Those with liver metastases (vs not) more frequently had an elevated CTC count (59.0% vs 33.3%, P = .02). CTCs were significantly associated with C-reactive protein (R = .22, P = .02), interleukin (IL)-6 (R = .25, P = .01), IL-8 (R = .38, P = .0001), plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (R = .31, P = .001), carcinoembryonic antigen (R = .31, P = .002), and cancer antigen 15-3 (R = .40, P = .0001) and inversely associated with body mass index (R = -.23, P = .02) and leptin (R = -.26, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: CTC counts were positively associated with tumor and inflammatory markers and inversely associated with some metabolic markers, potentially reflecting tumor burden and cachexia.

Evaluation of a decision aid for incidental genomic results, the Genomics ADvISER: protocol for a mixed methods randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Genome sequencing, a novel genetic diagnostic technology that analyses the billions of base pairs of DNA, promises to optimise healthcare through personalised diagnosis and treatment. However, implementation of genome sequencing faces challenges including the lack of consensus on disclosure of incidental results, gene changes unrelated to the disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance to the patient and their provider. Current recommendations encourage clinicians to return medically actionable incidental results and stress the importance of education and informed consent. Given the shortage of genetics professionals and genomics expertise among healthcare providers, decision aids (DAs) can help fill a critical gap in the clinical delivery of genome sequencing. We aim to assess the effectiveness of an interactive DA developed for selection of incidental results. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare the DA in combination with a brief Q&A session with a genetic counsellor to genetic counselling alone in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Patients who received negative standard cancer genetic results for their personal and family history of cancer and are thus eligible for sequencing will be recruited from cancer genetics clinics in Toronto. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes are knowledge, satisfaction, preparation for decision-making, anxiety and length of session with the genetic counsellor. A subset of participants will complete a qualitative interview about preferences for incidental results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by research ethics boards of St. Michael's Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. This research poses no significant risk to participants. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a novel patient-centred tool to support clinical delivery of incidental results. Results will be shared through national and international conferences, and at a stakeholder workshop to develop a consensus statement to optimise implementation of the DA in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03244202; Pre-results.