Patient uptake of updated genetic testing following uninformative BRCA1 and BRCA2 results.

Advances have dated the genetic testing initially offered to evaluate for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risks. Previous research has demonstrated that many patients have not updated testing. This study reviewed the incidence of additional analysis after an uninformative BRCA1/2 result and offered updated testing with limited barriers to those who had not completed. After viewing an educational video and providing informed consent, eligible patients were mailed a saliva collection kit to complete an 84-gene hereditary cancer panel at no personal cost. A total of 704 patients had completed BRCA1/2 only testing between 2001 and 2020. Fifteen percent (N = 102) of the 671 patients with an uninformative BRCA1/2 result had already completed expanded testing. Most, 74 of 102 (73%), had been rereferred to medical genetics during a clinical visit related to cancer care. Those who had already completed additional testing were more likely to have a personal history of cancer (92% vs. 79%, p = 0.002) and live locally (p = 0.032). Invitation to complete updated testing through this study was sent to 372 people, and 116 (31%) consented to participate. For 142 of the 256 who did not proceed with testing through the study, proof of receipt of research information was available. In total, 22 pathogenic variants were reported in 21 of the 226 patients with updated testing from before and including our study: ATM (4), CHEK2 (4), LZTR1 (1), MUTYH (3), NBN (1), NF1 (1), NTHL1 (1), PALB2 (4), PMS2 (1), RAD50 (1), and SPINK1 (1). Many potential barriers of retesting were eliminated by removing personal costs or travel requirements. Still, only about 30% of patients agreed to participate, and a significant portion elected not to proceed. Future research could focus on the discovery of other factors that dissuade patients and what measures may better inform them on potential benefits.

Comparison of a Focused Family Cancer History Questionnaire to Family History Documentation in the Electronic Medical Record.

INTRODUCTION: Family health history can be a valuable indicator of risk to develop certain cancers. Unfortunately, patient self-reported family history often contains inaccuracies, which might change recommendations for cancer screening. We endeavored to understand the difference between a patient's self-reported family history and their electronic medical record (EMR) family history. One aim of this study was to determine if family history information contained in the EMR differs from patient-reported family history collected using a focused questionnaire. METHODS: We created the Hereditary Cancer Questionnaire (HCQ) based on current guidelines and distributed to 314 patients in the Department of Family Medicine waiting room June 20 to August 1, 2018. The survey queried patients about specific cancers within their biological family to assess their risk of an inherited cancer syndrome. We used the questionnaire responses as a baseline when comparing family histories in the medical record. RESULTS: Agreement between the EMR and the questionnaire data decreased as the patients' risk for familial cancer increased. Meaning that the more significant a patient's family cancer history, the less likely it was to be recorded accurately and consistently in the EMR. Patients with low-risk levels, or fewer instances of cancer in the family, had more consistencies between the EMR and the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Given that physicians often make recommendations on incomplete information that is in the EMR, patients might not receive individualized preventive care based on a more complete family cancer history. This is especially true for individuals with more complicated and significant family history of cancer. An improved method of collecting family history, including increasing patient engagement, may help to decrease this disparity.

Physician-directed genetic screening to evaluate personal risk for medically actionable disorders: a large multi-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of proactive genetic screening for disease prevention and early detection is not yet widespread. Professional practice guidelines from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) have encouraged reporting pathogenic variants that confer personal risk for actionable monogenic hereditary disorders, but only as secondary findings from exome or genome sequencing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognizes the potential public health impact of three Tier 1 actionable disorders. Here, we report results of a large multi-center cohort study to determine the yield and potential value of screening healthy individuals for variants associated with a broad range of actionable monogenic disorders, outside the context of secondary findings. METHODS: Eligible adults were offered a proactive genetic screening test by health care providers in a variety of clinical settings. The screening panel based on next-generation sequencing contained up to 147 genes associated with monogenic disorders within cancer, cardiovascular, and other important clinical areas. Sequence and intragenic copy number variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, pathogenic (low penetrance), or increased risk allele were considered clinically significant and reported. Results were analyzed by clinical area and severity/burden of disease using chi-square tests without Yates' correction. RESULTS: Among 10,478 unrelated adults screened, 1619 (15.5%) had results indicating personal risk for an actionable monogenic disorder. In contrast, only 3.1 to 5.2% had clinically reportable variants in genes suggested by the ACMG version 2 secondary findings list to be examined during exome or genome sequencing, and 2% had reportable variants related to CDC Tier 1 conditions. Among patients, 649 (6.2%) were positive for a genotype associated with a disease of high severity/burden, including hereditary cancer syndromes, cardiovascular disorders, or malignant hyperthermia susceptibility. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first real-world examples of specialists and primary care providers using genetic screening with a multi-gene panel to identify health risks in their patients. Nearly one in six individuals screened for variants associated with actionable monogenic disorders had clinically significant results. These findings provide a foundation for further studies to assess the role of genetic screening as part of regular medical care.

Comparison of Universal Genetic Testing vs Guideline-Directed Targeted Testing for Patients With Hereditary Cancer Syndrome.

IMPORTANCE: Hereditary factors play a key role in the risk of developing several cancers. Identification of a germline predisposition can have important implications for treatment decisions, risk-reducing interventions, cancer screening, and germline testing. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in patients with cancer using a universal testing approach compared with targeted testing based on clinical guidelines and the uptake of cascade family variant testing (FVT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, multicenter cohort study assessed germline genetic alterations among patients with solid tumor cancer receiving care at Mayo Clinic cancer centers and a community practice between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020. Patients were not selected based on cancer type, disease stage, family history of cancer, ethnicity, or age. EXPOSURES: Germline sequencing using a greater than 80-gene next-generation sequencing platform. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of PGVs detected with a universal strategy compared with a guideline-directed approach and uptake of cascade FVT in families. RESULTS: A total of 2984 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [12.2] years; 1582 [53.0%] male) were studied. Pathogenic germline variants were found in 397 patients (13.3%), including 282 moderate- and high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes. Variants of uncertain significance were found in 1415 patients (47.4%). A total of 192 patients (6.4%) had incremental clinically actionable findings that would not have been detected by phenotype or family history-based testing criteria. Of those with a high-penetrance PGV, 42 patients (28.2%) had modifications in their treatment based on the finding. Only younger age of diagnosis was associated with presence of PGV. Only 70 patients (17.6%) with PGVs had family members undergoing no-cost cascade FVT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This prospective, multicenter cohort study found that universal multigene panel testing among patients with solid tumor cancer was associated with an increased detection of heritable variants over the predicted yield of targeted testing based on guidelines. Nearly 30% of patients with high-penetrance variants had modifications in their treatment. Uptake of cascade FVT was low despite being offered at no cost.

Case report expanding the germline AXIN2- related phenotype to include olfactory neuroblastoma and gastric adenoma.

BACKGROUND: Pathogenic AXIN2 variants cause absence of permanent teeth (hypodontia), sparse hair and eye brows (ectodermal dysplasia), and gastrointestinal polyps and cancer. Inheritance is autosomal dominant with variable penetrance. Only twenty- five patients have been reported from five families. A Mayo Clinic pilot program tested 3009 newly diagnosed cancer patients for pathogenic germline variants in 83 hereditary cancer genes, including AXIN2. We found only one patient with a pathogenic AXIN2 variant. CASE PRESENTATION: The proband was a 49 year-old female who came to Otolaryngology clinic complaining of right-sided nasal obstruction. Biopsy of identified nasal polyp revealed olfactory neuroblastoma (esthesioneuroblastoma). Surgical resection with gross, total tumor resection was followed by radiation therapy. The patient enrolled in a clinical pilot of genetic testing and a pathogenic variant in AXIN2, c.1822del (p.Leu608Phefs*81) (NM_004655.3) was found. She was seen in Medical Genetics clinic and found to have a personal history of hypodontia. Her eyebrows, hair, and nails were all normal. She underwent upper endoscopy and colonoscopy. A four mm gastric adenoma was found and removed. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first case reported on a patient with a pathogenic, germline AXIN2 variant and an olfactory neuroblastoma or a gastric adenoma. We propose that these could be features of the AXIN2 phenotype. The known association between gastric adenomas and familial adenomatous polyposis, the other Wnt/beta-catenin disorder, supports the hypothesis that pathogenic AXIN2 variants increase risk as well. As the odds of a chance co-occurrence of a pathogenic AXIN2 variant and an olfactory neuroblastoma are so rare, it is worth exploring potential causation. We are building a clinical registry to expand understanding of the AXIN2 phenotype and request any clinicians caring for patients with pathogenic AXIN2 variants to contact us.

Retrospective review of outcomes in patients with DNA-damage repair related pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with DNA-damage response genes (DDR)-related pancreas cancer (BRCA1/2 or other DNA-damage related genes) may have improved outcomes secondary to increased sensitivity to DNA-damaging drugs (platinum chemotherapy/ poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP)-inhibitors). However, data is scarce pertaining to outcomes in this subset of patients. Our objective was to retrospectively identify DDR-related pancreas cancer patients and report on clinical outcomes. METHODS: Pancreas cancer patients with a germline pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2 or other DDR gene were identified retrospectively through review of medical records (medical genetics/oncology) and genetic testing results at our institution. Data regarding clinical outcomes, therapy received, and survival was subsequently extracted. RESULTS: A total of 11 patients with pancreas cancer were identified to carry a pathogenic DDR-variant: BRCA1 (3), ATM (4), BRCA2 (2), PALB2 (1) and FANCC (1). Five of these individuals had prior history of other cancers. Clinically these tumors were localized (4), locally advanced (3), and metastatic (4) at diagnosis. Four out of 11 patients were still alive at time of data review. Survival in the 7 patients who had died was 13.7, 140.0, 20.5, 22.3, 23.5, 25.8, and 111.5 months. All patients with advanced disease had exposure to platinum chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Historical survival in patients with advanced and metastatic pancreas cancer is poor. Results of this DDR-subset of patients do show significantly superior outcomes, likely secondary to exposure to platinum drugs. This data, alongside other similar cohorts, would favor the DDR-genes being a predictive marker with improved survival if exposed to these drugs and the new class of drugs, PARP-inhibitors.