Implementation of risk assessment process for breast cancer risk in primary care.

Background: Current cancer prevention guidelines recommend assessing breast cancer risk using validated risk calculators such as Tyrer-Cuzick and assessing genetic testing eligibility with NCCN. Women at high-risk of breast cancer may be recommended to undergo additional or earlier screening. Risk assessment is not consistently implemented in the primary care setting resulting in increased morbidity and mortality in unidentified high-risk individuals. Methods: A single-arm interventional study was conducted in an academic primary care clinic for women 25-50 years old presenting for primary care appointments. Pre-visit workflows evaluated breast cancer risk using the Cancer Risk Assessment (CRA) Tool and information was provided to the clinician with guideline-based recommendations. Post-visit questionnaires and chart review were conducted. Results: The survey response rate was 24.5% (144/587) with 80.3% of responses completed online (94/117). The average age of respondents was 35.8 years with 50.4% White and 35.9% Black. There were no differences in response rate based on race. Risk discussion was documented in the medical record in 15.4% of cases with a higher rate of documentation in high-risk patient based on risk assessment as compared with average risk respondents (34.6% vs. 9.7%, p<0.01). In the high-risk women identified 11.4% (4/35) were seen by the high-risk breast clinic, and 5.7% (2/35) were referred for genetic evaluation. None had previously obtained MRI screening or genetic testing. Conclusions: There is limited identification and evaluation of women at high risk for breast cancer. Pre-visit surveys can be used as a tool to assess breast cancer risk in the primary care setting; however additional strategies are needed to implement systematic risk assessment and facilitate appropriate treatment based on risk level.

Feasibility of risk assessment for breast cancer molecular subtypes.

PURPOSE: Few breast cancer risk assessment models account for the risk profiles of different tumor subtypes. This study evaluated whether a subtype-specific approach improves discrimination. METHODS: Among 3389 women who had a screening mammogram and were later diagnosed with invasive breast cancer we performed multinomial logistic regression with tumor subtype as the outcome and known breast cancer risk factors as predictors. Tumor subtypes were defined by expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) based on immunohistochemistry. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Absolute risk of each subtype was estimated by proportioning Gail absolute risk estimates by the predicted probabilities for each subtype. We then compared risk factor distributions for women in the highest deciles of risk for each subtype. RESULTS: There were 3,073 ER/PR+ HER2 - , 340 ER/PR +HER2 + , 126 ER/PR-ER2+, and 300 triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC). Discrimination differed by subtype; ER/PR-HER2+ (AUC: 0.64, 95% CI 0.59, 0.69) and TNBC (AUC: 0.64, 95% CI 0.61, 0.68) had better discrimination than ER/PR+HER2+ (AUC: 0.61, 95% CI 0.58, 0.64). Compared to other subtypes, patients at high absolute risk of TNBC were younger, mostly Black, had no family history of breast cancer, and higher BMI. Those at high absolute risk of HER2+ cancers were younger and had lower BMI. CONCLUSION: Our study provides proof of concept that stratifying risk prediction for breast cancer subtypes may enable identification of patients with unique profiles conferring increased risk for tumor subtypes.

Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer Genetic Testing May be Mitigated by Counseling.

BACKGROUND: Currently, racial disparities exist in access to genetic testing. Recent developments have helped narrow the gap in accessibility. The purpose of this study was to determine whether racial disparities in genetic consultation attendance and completion of genetic testing persist, and, if so, factors that contribute to under-utilization of these resources. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of breast patients referred for genetic counseling between 2017 and 2019 was performed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression evaluated factors associated with genetic counseling attendance and genetic testing. RESULTS: A total of 596 patients were referred for genetic counseling: 433 (72.7%) white; 138 (23.2%) black; and 25 (4.2%) other or unknown. In multivariate analysis, black patients, patients without breast cancer family history, and patients without a current cancer diagnosis, classified as high risk, were significantly less likely to attend their genetics appointment (p = 0.010, p = 0.007, p = 0.005, respectively). Age, insurance type, distance from facility, and need for chemotherapy did not significantly impact consult completion rate. Of the patients who completed a genetic consult, 84.4% (n = 248) had genetic testing and 17.7% (n = 44) had a pathogenic variant. For patients who attended counseling, there were no significant factors that were predictive with receipt of genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, there was a significant association between race and attending genetic counseling. Once counseled, most patients went on to receive genetic testing, and racial disparities in testing disappeared, emphasizing the value of providing additional education about the importance and purpose of genetic testing.

Access to an Educational Video Preoperatively Has No Effect on Postoperative Opioid Use After Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy of the Knee: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Purpose: To determine whether access to a website with an educational video would decrease postoperative opioid use in patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Methods: Enrolled patients who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy at a single center were randomized to either the intervention or control group prior to surgery. The intervention group received a card with access to an online educational video regarding opioids with their postoperative instructions; the control group did not. The online video was just over 5 minutes long and contained general information about the dangers of opioid use, how to safely dispose of unused opioids, and local support contact information. Data were collected by telephone 10 to 14 days postoperatively and analyzed with GraphPad Prism version 9.5.0. Patient characteristics including age, sex, body mass index, allergies, smoking, depression, alcohol abuse, American Society of Anesthesiologists level, diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, diabetes, substance abuse, employment status, workers' compensation, and sports participation were analyzed and correlated with postoperative opioid use. Results: A total of 166 patients were included in this study, with 78 in the control group and 88 in the intervention group. Mean number of pills consumed was 3 in the control group and 2.2 in the intervention group. This difference did not reach statistical significance. Patients who were obese, smokers, or diagnosed with depression both consumed more opioids and were less likely to take no narcotics postoperatively. Patients who participated in sports consumed fewer total opioids on average than those who did not. Subgroup analysis of patients with higher risk factors did not show a difference between the control and intervention groups in the average amount of opioid used or the likelihood of using no narcotics. Among all patients, 82 (49%) used no narcotics postoperatively and 90% used 8 or fewer tablets. Conclusions: Directing patients to an educational website and video is not an effective tool in decreasing opioid consumption. Patients undergoing arthroscopic meniscectomy who are obese, active smokers, and clinically depressed or do not participate in sports are likely to use more postoperative narcotics. Regardless of access to the online educational video, half of patients used no narcotics. Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective cohort.

Implementation Mapping for Managing Patients at High Risk for Hereditary Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, no standard workflow exists for managing patients with pathogenic variants that put them at higher risk for hereditary cancers. Therefore, follow-up care for individuals with pathogenic variants is logistically challenging and results in poor guideline adherence. To address this challenge, authors created clinical management strategies for individuals identified at high risk for hereditary cancers. METHODS: An implementation mapping approach was used to develop and evaluate the establishment of a Hereditary Cancer Clinic at the Medical University of South Carolina throughout in 2022. This approach consisted of 5 steps: conduct a needs assessment, identify objectives, select implementation strategies, produce implementation protocols, and develop an evaluation plan. The needs assessment consisted of qualitative interviews with patients (n=11), specialists (n=9), and members of the implementation team (n=4). Interviews were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify barriers and facilitators to establishment of the Hereditary Cancer Clinic. Objectives were identified, and then the team selected implementation strategies and produced implementation protocols to address concerns identified during the needs assessment. Authors conducted a second round of patient interviews to assess patient education materials. RESULTS: The research team developed a long-term evaluation plan to guide future assessment of implementation, service, and clinical/patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This approach provides the opportunity for real-time enhancements and impact, with strategies for care specialists, patients, and implementation teams. Findings support ongoing efforts to improve patient management and outcomes while providing an opportunity for long-term evaluation of implementation strategies and guidelines for patients at high risk for hereditary cancers.

Successful Development of a Natural Language Processing Algorithm for Pancreatic Neoplasms and Associated Histologic Features.

OBJECTIVES: Natural language processing (NLP) algorithms can interpret unstructured text for commonly used terms and phrases. Pancreatic pathologies are diverse and include benign and malignant entities with associated histologic features. Creating a pancreas NLP algorithm can aid in electronic health record coding as well as large database creation and curation. METHODS: Text-based pancreatic anatomic and cytopathologic reports for pancreatic cancer, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, neuroendocrine tumor, intraductal papillary neoplasm, tumor dysplasia, and suspicious findings were collected. This dataset was split 80/20 for model training and development. A separate set was held out for testing purposes. We trained using convolutional neural network to predict each heading. RESULTS: Over 14,000 reports were obtained from the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System electronic record. Of these, 1252 reports were used for algorithm development. Final accuracy and F1 scores relative to the test set ranged from 95% and 98% for each queried pathology. To understand the dependence of our results to training set size, we also generated learning curves. Scoring metrics improved as more reports were submitted for training; however, some queries had high index performance. CONCLUSIONS: Natural language processing algorithms can be used for pancreatic pathologies. Increased training volume, nonoverlapping terminology, and conserved text structure improve NLP algorithm performance.

Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients: experience from a single surgeon's practice in a large US Academic Center.

This study evaluated the impact of mainstreamed genetic testing (MGT) on the timing and uptake of testing in an academic breast surgeon's practice. Before September 2019 (pre-MGT phase), a breast surgery practice at Massachusetts General Hospital followed a traditional model of a pre-test consultation with a genetic counselor (GC) following a referral. After September 2019 (post-MGT phase), the same practice offered patients genetic testing in a single clinical encounter with a breast surgeon. We evaluated the waiting time between referral and GC visit in the pre-MGT phase and compared the uptake and positivity rates between both phases. In the pre-MGT phase (204 patients), the median waiting time for GC visit was seven days for patients with a newly diagnosed cancer, 211 days for patients with a personal history of cancer, and 224 days for non-cancer patients who had a family history. A total of 105 (51.5%) patients completed a GC appointment. In the post-MGT phase (202 patients), a significantly higher proportion of patients (88.1%, p < 0.001) consented to genetic testing, while the proportion of patients who tested positive was lower (pathogenic variant: 11.9% vs. 20.0%; variant of uncertain significance: 19.9% vs. 28.0%; p = 0.047). Implementing MGT can reduce the number of clinical visits, significantly shorten patients' wait time to test initiation, and increase the completion of genetic testing. Successful integration of this model relied on the genetic expertise of the breast surgeon involved and the support of the GC team.

Access disparities and underutilization of germline genetic testing in Chilean breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Latin American reports on genetic cancer risk assessments are scarce. In Chile, current breast cancer (BC) guidelines do not define strategies for germline genetic testing. Our study sought to quantify the disparities in access to genetic testing in Chilean BC patients, according to international standards and their clinical characteristics to explore improvement strategies. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of invasive BC databases including patients treated in a Public Hospital (PH) and in an Academic Private Center (AC) in Santiago, Chile between 2012 and 2021. RESULTS: Of 5438 BC patients, 3955 had enough data for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) categorization. From these, 1911 (48.3%) fulfilled NCCN criteria for germline testing, of whom, 300 were tested for germline mutations and 268 with multigene panels. A total of 65 pathogenic variants were found in this subset. As expected, BRCA1/2 mutations were the most frequent (17.7%). Access to genetic testing was higher in AC versus PH (19.6% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.0001). Other variables associated with germline genetic testing were BC diagnosis after 2018, being 45 years old or younger at diagnosis, BC family history (FH), FH of ovarian cancer, non-metastatic disease, and triple-negative subtype. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, 15% of BC patients who met NCCN criteria for germline testing were effectively tested. This percentage was even lower at the PH. Current recommendations encourage universal genetic testing for BC patients; however, our findings suggest that Chile is far from reaching such a goal and national guidelines in this regard are urgently needed. To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind in Chile and Latin America.

Combining Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models.

Accurate risk stratification is key to reducing cancer morbidity through targeted screening and preventative interventions. Multiple breast cancer risk prediction models are used in clinical practice, and often provide a range of different predictions for the same patient. Integrating information from different models may improve the accuracy of predictions, which would be valuable for both clinicians and patients. BRCAPRO is a widely used model that predicts breast cancer risk based on detailed family history information. A major limitation of this model is that it does not consider non-genetic risk factors. To address this limitation, we expand BRCAPRO by combining it with another popular existing model, BCRAT (i.e., Gail), which uses a largely complementary set of risk factors, most of them non-genetic. We consider two approaches for combining BRCAPRO and BCRAT: (1) modifying the penetrance (age-specific probability of developing cancer given genotype) functions in BRCAPRO using relative hazard estimates from BCRAT, and (2) training an ensemble model that takes BRCAPRO and BCRAT predictions as input. Using both simulated data and data from Newton-Wellesley Hospital and the Cancer Genetics Network, we show that the combination models are able to achieve performance gains over both BRCAPRO and BCRAT. In the Cancer Genetics Network cohort, we show that the proposed BRCAPRO + BCRAT penetrance modification model performs comparably to IBIS, an existing model that combines detailed family history with non-genetic risk factors.

Penetrance of Gastric Adenocarcinoma Susceptibility Genes: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) is the fifth most common cancer in the world, and the presence of germline pathogenic variants has been linked with approximately 5% of gastric cancer diagnoses. Multiple GAC susceptibility genes have been identified, but information regarding the risk associated with pathogenic variants in these genes remains obscure. We conducted a systematic review of existing studies reporting the penetrance of GAC susceptibility genes. METHODS: A structured search query was devised to identify GAC-related papers indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed. A semi-automated natural language processing algorithm was applied to identify penetrance papers for inclusion. Original studies reporting the penetrance of GAC were included and the full-text articles were independently reviewed. Summary statistics, effect estimates, and precision parameters from these studies were compiled into a table using a predetermined format to ensure consistency. RESULTS: Forty-five studies were identified reporting the penetrance of GAC among patients harboring mutations in 13 different genes: APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, MUTYH-Monoallelic, NBN, and STK11. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review highlights the importance of testing for germline pathogenic variants in patients before the development of GAC. Management of patients who harbor a pathogenic mutation is multifactorial, and clinicians should consider cancer risk for each applicable gene-cancer association throughout the screening and management process. The scarcity of studies we found investigating the risk of GAC among patients with pathogenic variants in GAC susceptibility genes highlights the need for more investigations that focus on producing robust risk estimates for gene-cancer associations.

Clinical Utility of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for Patients With Breast Cancer.

Importance: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines currently recommend germline testing for high-risk genes in selected patients with breast cancer. The clinical utility of recommending testing all patients with breast cancer with multigene panels is currently under consideration. Objective: To examine the implications of universal testing of patients with breast cancer with respect to clinical decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients from a previously reported cohort were assessed as in-criteria or out-of-criteria according to the 2017 guidelines and underwent testing with a multigene germline panel between 2017 to 2018. Patients were women and men aged 18 to 90 years, with a new and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer who had not undergone either single or multigene testing. Clinicians from 20 community and academic sites documented patient clinical information and changes to clinical recommendations made according to test findings. Association between prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants and previously unreported clinical features, including scores generated by the BRCAPRO statistical model, was determined. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to May 2022. Exposure: New and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disease management recommendations that were changed as a result of genetic testing results are reported. Results: Clinicians were asked to assess changes to clinical management as a result of germline genetic testing for 952 patients. Informative clinician-reported recommendations were provided for 939 (467 in-criteria and 472 out-of-criteria) of the patients with breast cancer (936 [99.7%] female; 702 [74.8%] White; mean [SD] age at initial diagnosis, 57.6 [11.5] years). One or more changes were reported for 31 of 37 (83.8%) in-criteria patients and 23 of 34 (67.6%) out-of-criteria patients with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Recommendations were changed as a result of testing results for 14 of 22 (63.6%) out-of-criteria patients who had a variant in a breast cancer predisposition gene. Clinicians considered testing beneficial for two-thirds of patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and for one-third of patients with either negative results or variants of uncertain significance. There was no difference in variant rate between patients meeting the BRCAPRO threshold (≥10%) and those who did not (P = .86, Fisher exact test). No changes to clinical recommendations were made for most patients with negative results (345 of 349 patients [98.9%]) or variants of uncertain significance (492 of 509 patients [96.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, germline genetic testing was used by clinicians to direct treatment for most out-of-criteria patients with breast cancer with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants, including those with moderate-risk variants. Universal germline testing informs clinical decision-making and provides access to targeted treatments and clinical trials for all patients with breast cancer.

Predominance of BRCA2 Mutation and Estrogen Receptor Positivity in Unselected Breast Cancer with BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 inhibitor (PARPi) agents can improve progression-free survival of patients with breast cancer who carry a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant (gBRCA) in both the metastatic and adjuvant setting. Therefore, we need to reassess the frequency of gBRCA1 and gBRCA2 in order to redefine the criteria for women and tumor phenotype that should be tested. OBJECTIVE: We studied the relative distribution of gBRCA1 and gBRCA2 in unselected populations of women with breast cancer and in unaffected individuals. We also analyzed the proportion of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (ER+) tumors in unselected breast cancer patients with gBRCA. DESIGN: We performed a meta-analysis of studies of unselected breast cancer that analyzed the relative contribution of gBRCA1 versus gBRCA2 among unselected breast cancer cases in gBRCA carriers. We then performed a meta-analysis of gBRCA carriage in unaffected individuals from genome-wide population studies, the gnomAD databank, and case-control studies. RESULTS: The BRCA2 gene was involved in 54% of breast cancer cases in unselected patients with gBRCA (n = 108,699) and 60% of unaffected individuals (n = 238,973) as compared with 38% of the largest gBRCA family cohort (n = 29,700). The meta-analysis showed that 1.66% (95% CI 1.08-2.54) and 1.71% (95% CI 1.33-2.2) of unselected breast cancer patients carried gBRCA1 and gBRCA2, respectively. In a population of unaffected individuals, the frequency of heterozygosity for gBRCA1 and gBRCA2 was estimated at 1/434 and 1/288, respectively. Nearly 0.5% of unaffected individuals in the studied populations carried a gBRCA. Carriage of a gBRCA was 2.5% for patients with ER+ tumors (95% CI 1.5-4.1) and 5.7% (95% CI 5.1-6.2) for those with ER- tumors. Overall, 58% of breast tumors occurring in women carrying a gBRCA were ER+ (n = 86,870). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that gBRCA2 carriage is predominant in unselected breast cancer patients and unaffected individuals. ER+ tumors among women with gBRCA-related breast cancer are predominant and have been underestimated. Because PARPi agents improve progression-free survival with ER+ gBRCA breast cancer in most clinical trials, breast cancer should be considered, regardless of ER status, for BRCA1/2 screening for therapeutic purposes.

Magnetic Seeds: An Alternative to Wire Localization for Nonpalpable Breast Lesions.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic seeds have emerged as an alternative to wires for localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of magnetic seeds compared to wires for preoperative localization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of magnetic seed localization (MSL) and wire localization (WL) excisional biopsies and lumpectomies performed at a single institution was conducted. Indication, age, BMI, number of markers, procedure type, operative time, and postoperative opioid administration were reviewed. Impact of localization method on operative time, specimen volume, postoperative opioid administration, and re-excision rate were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 608 MSL procedures in 601 patients were compared to 628 WL procedures in 620 patients. MSL excisional biopsies were significantly longer (37.0 minutes) than WL excisional biopsies (31.9 minutes, P< .001), but in lumpectomies without axillary surgery, MSL procedures (42.3 minutes) were significantly shorter than WL procedures (46.9 minutes, P = .017). Significantly less tissue was excised during MSL lumpectomies (68.5 cm3) and excisional biopsies (32.3 cm3) than WL lumpectomies (78.1 cm3, P = .039) and excisional biopsies (38.7 cm3, P = .018). Postoperative opioid administration was similar for MSL and WL procedures (P = .076). Re-excision rates for MSL lumpectomies were significantly higher for ductal carcinoma in situ (35.3% MSL vs. 18.5% WL, P = .013), but were similar for invasive carcinoma (14.4% MSL vs. 17.7% WL, P = .290). Logistic regression analysis showed no association between localization method and re-excision (OR 1.007, 95% CI 0.681-1.488; P = .973). CONCLUSION: MSL is a feasible alternative to WL for excision of nonpalpable breast lesions with regard to surgical outcomes.