Implementing Multifactorial Risk Assessment with Polygenic Risk Scores for Personalized Breast Cancer Screening in the Population Setting: Challenges and Opportunities.

Risk-stratified breast screening has been proposed as a strategy to overcome the limitations of age-based screening. A prospective cohort study was undertaken within the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which will generate the first Canadian evidence on multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment in the population setting to inform the implementation of risk-stratified screening. Recruited females aged 40-69 unaffected by breast cancer, with a previous mammogram, underwent multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment. The adoption of multifactorial risk assessment, the effectiveness of methods for collecting risk factor information and the costs of risk assessment were examined. Associations between participant characteristics and study sites, as well as data collection methods, were assessed using logistic regression; all p-values are two-sided. Of the 4246 participants recruited, 88.4% completed a risk assessment, with 79.8%, 15.7% and 4.4% estimated at average, higher than average and high risk, respectively. The total per-participant cost for risk assessment was CAD 315. Participants who chose to provide risk factor information on paper/telephone (27.2%) vs. online were more likely to be older (p = 0.021), not born in Canada (p = 0.043), visible minorities (p = 0.01) and have a lower attained education (p < 0.0001) and perceived fair/poor health (p < 0.001). The 34.4% of participants requiring risk factor verification for missing/unusual values were more likely to be visible minorities (p = 0.009) and have a lower attained education (p ≤ 0.006). This study demonstrates the feasibility of risk assessment for risk-stratified screening at the population level. Implementation should incorporate an equity lens to ensure cancer-screening disparities are not widened.

Bilateral Oophorectomy and All-Cause Mortality in Women With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Sequence Variations.

Importance: Preventive bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is offered to women at high risk of ovarian cancer who carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2; however, the association of oophorectomy with all-cause mortality has not been clearly defined. Objective: To evaluate the association between bilateral oophorectomy and all-cause mortality among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this international, longitudinal cohort study of women with BRCA sequence variations, information on bilateral oophorectomy was obtained via biennial questionnaire. Participants were women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation, no prior history of cancer, and at least 1 follow-up questionnaire completed. Women were followed up from age 35 to 75 years for incident cancers and deaths. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for all-cause mortality associated with a bilateral oophorectomy (time dependent). Data analysis was performed from January 1 to June 1, 2023. Exposures: Self-reported bilateral oophorectomy (with or without salpingectomy). Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality, breast cancer-specific mortality, and ovarian cancer-specific mortality. Results: There were 4332 women (mean age, 42.6 years) enrolled in the cohort, of whom 2932 (67.8%) chose to undergo a preventive oophorectomy at a mean (range) age of 45.4 (23.0-77.0) years. After a mean follow-up of 9.0 years, 851 women had developed cancer and 228 had died; 57 died of ovarian or fallopian tube cancer, 58 died of breast cancer, 16 died of peritoneal cancer, and 97 died of other causes. The age-adjusted HR for all-cause mortality associated with oophorectomy was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.24-0.42; P < .001). The age-adjusted HR was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.20-0.38; P < .001) and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.22-0.90; P = .03) for women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequence variations, respectively. For women with BRCA1 sequence variations, the estimated cumulative all-cause mortality to age 75 years for women who had an oophorectomy at age 35 years was 25%, compared to 62% for women who did not have an oophorectomy. For women with BRCA2 sequence variations, the estimated cumulative all-cause mortality to age 75 years was 14% for women who had an oophorectomy at age 35 years compared to 28% for women who did not have an oophorectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation, oophorectomy was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality.

MRI Surveillance and Breast Cancer Mortality in Women With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Sequence Variations.

Importance: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance is offered to women with a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene who face a high lifetime risk of breast cancer. Surveillance with MRI is effective in downstaging breast cancers, but the association of MRI surveillance with mortality risk has not been well defined. Objective: To compare breast cancer mortality rates in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation who entered an MRI surveillance program with those who did not. Design, Setting, and Participants: Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation were identified from 59 participating centers in 11 countries. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire between 1995 and 2015 and a follow-up questionnaire every 2 years to document screening histories, incident cancers, and vital status. Women who had breast cancer, a screening MRI examination, or bilateral mastectomy prior to enrollment were excluded. Participants were followed up from age 30 years (or the date of the baseline questionnaire, whichever was later) until age 75 years, the last follow-up, or death from breast cancer. Data were analyzed from January 1 to July 31, 2023. Exposures: Entrance into an MRI surveillance program. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for breast cancer mortality associated with MRI surveillance compared with no MRI surveillance using a time-dependent analysis. Results: A total of 2488 women (mean [range] age at study entry 41.2 [30-69] years), with a sequence variation in the BRCA1 (n = 2004) or BRCA2 (n = 484) genes were included in the analysis. Of these participants, 1756 (70.6%) had at least 1 screening MRI examination and 732 women (29.4%) did not. After a mean follow-up of 9.2 years, 344 women (13.8%) developed breast cancer and 35 women (1.4%) died of breast cancer. The age-adjusted HRs for breast cancer mortality associated with entering an MRI surveillance program were 0.20 (95% CI, 0.10-0.43; P < .001) for women with BRCA1 sequence variations and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.10-17.25; P = .93) for women with BRCA2 sequence variations. Conclusion and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that among women with a BRCA1 sequence variation, MRI surveillance was associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with no MRI surveillance. Further studies of women with BRCA2 sequence variations are needed to ascertain these women obtain the same benefits associated with MRI surveillance.

A model for the return and referral of all clinically significant secondary findings of genomic sequencing.

Secondary findings (SFs) identified through genomic sequencing (GS) can offer a wide range of health benefits to patients. Resource and capacity constraints pose a challenge to their clinical management; therefore, clinical workflows are needed to optimise the health benefits of SFs. In this paper, we describe a model we created for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs, beyond medically actionable results, from GS. As part of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the outcomes and costs of disclosing all clinically significant SFs from GS, we consulted genetics and primary care experts to determine a feasible workflow to manage SFs. Consensus was sought to determine appropriate clinical recommendations for each category of SF and which clinician specialist would provide follow-up care. We developed a communication and referral plan for each category of SFs. This involved referrals to specialised clinics, such as an Adult Genetics clinic, for highly penetrant medically actionable findings. Common and non-urgent SFs, such as pharmacogenomics and carrier status results for non-family planning participants, were directed back to the family physician (FP). SF results and recommendations were communicated directly to participants to respect autonomy and to their FPs to support follow-up of SFs. We describe a model for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs to facilitate the utility of GS and promote the health benefits of SFs. This may serve as a model for others returning GS results transitioning participants from research to clinical settings.

Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation (PERSPECTIVE I&I).

Early detection of breast cancer through screening reduces breast cancer mortality. The benefits of screening must also be considered within the context of potential harms (e.g., false positives, overdiagnosis). Furthermore, while breast cancer risk is highly variable within the population, most screening programs use age to determine eligibility. A risk-based approach is expected to improve the benefit-harm ratio of breast cancer screening programs. The PERSPECTIVE I&I (Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation) project seeks to improve personalized risk assessment to allow for a cost-effective, population-based approach to risk-based screening and determine best practices for implementation in Canada. This commentary describes the four inter-related activities that comprise the PERSPECTIVE I&I project. 1: Identification and validation of novel moderate to high-risk susceptibility genes. 2: Improvement, validation, and adaptation of a risk prediction web-tool for the Canadian context. 3: Development and piloting of a socio-ethical framework to support implementation of risk-based breast cancer screening. 4: Economic analysis to optimize the implementation of risk-based screening. Risk-based screening and prevention is expected to benefit all women, empowering them to work with their healthcare provider to make informed decisions about screening and prevention.

Impact of rarity on Canadian oncology health technology assessment and funding.

OBJECTIVES: The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) evaluates new cancer drugs for public funding recommendations. While pCODR's deliberative framework evaluates overall clinical benefit and includes considerations for exceptional circumstances, rarity of indication is not explicitly addressed. Given the high unmet need that typically accompanies these indications, we explored the impact of rarity on oncology HTA recommendations and funding decisions. METHODS: We examined pCODR submissions with final recommendations from 2012 to 2017. Incidence rates were calculated using pCODR recommendation reports and statistics from the Canadian Cancer Society. Indications were classified as rare if the incidence rate was lower than 1/100,000 diagnoses, a definition referenced by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Each pCODR final report was examined for the funding recommendation/justification, level of supporting evidence (presence of a randomized control trial [RCT]), and time to funding (if applicable). RESULTS: Of the ninety-six pCODR reviews examined, 16.6 percent were classified as rare indications per above criteria. While the frequency of positive funding recommendations were similar between rare and nonrare indication (78.6 vs. 75 percent), rare indications were less likely to be presented with evidence from RCT (50 vs. 90 percent). The average time to funding did not differ significantly across provinces. CONCLUSION: Rare indications appear to be associated with weaker clinical evidence. There appears to be no association between rarity, positive funding recommendations, and time to funding. Further work will evaluate factors associated with positive recommendations and the real-world utilization of funded treatments for rare indications.

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.

Genetic assessment wait time indicators in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: The Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women aged 30-69 with annual MRI and mammography. This study evaluated wait time (WT) indicators along the genetic assessment (GA) pathway for women referred to the High Risk OBSP. METHODS: Information was collected for 27,170 women referred to the High Risk OBSP from July 2011 to June 2015 and followed for GA until June 2016. Median duration (days), interquartile range (IQR) were measured for each WT indicator by program year, age, prior breast cancer, and risk criteria. RESULTS: Among 24,811 women who completed GA, 16,367 (66.0%) had genetic counseling only, 8,444 (34.0%) had counseling and testing and 8,027 (32.4%) met the high risk criteria. Median WT from physician visit to first screen was longer for women having genetic counseling only compared to those having counseling and testing (244 vs. 197 days). Women having counseling only also experienced the longest WT from physician visit to genetic counseling (88 days; IQR = 10-174), which increased by year from 71 to 100 days (p < .0001). Among women having counseling and testing, WT from physician visit to counseling was shortest for mutation carriers (39 days; IQR = 4-100). Median WT from testing to laboratory report issue was 41 days (IQR = 22-70) and 17 days to disclosure of test results (IQR = 7-33). Both WTs decreased with year and were shorter for mutation carriers (33 days, IQR = 19-58; 15 days, IQR = 7-28, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: After implementation of the High Risk OBSP, women received timely genetic counseling, in particular those having counseling and testing. Effective triage models for physicians could reduce WT to GA after physician referral.

Population-based assessment of emergency room visits and hospitalizations among women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant chemotherapy is considered standard care for patients with lymph node (LN) -positive and high-risk LN-negative early breast cancer (EBC). Although chemotherapy-associated toxicities are documented in clinical trials, the impact of toxicities on emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations (ER + Hs) at a population level with contemporary chemotherapy is unknown. We undertook a population-based study of ER + Hs in patients with EBC receiving adjuvant chemotherapy compared with noncancer controls (NCCs). METHODS: All patients diagnosed with EBC between January 2007 and December 2009 in Ontario, Canada, were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Patient records were linked deterministically to provincial health care databases to provide comprehensive medical follow-up. All patients received ≥ one cycle of adjuvant chemotherapy. Patient cases of EBC (n = 8,359) were matched to NCCs (n = 8,359) on age, comorbidity, and geographic location. ER + Hs within 30 days of chemotherapy were identified. If the primary reason for the visit was a common chemotherapy toxicity, the visit was considered chemotherapy associated. All-cause and chemotherapy-associated visits were compared between patient cases and controls. Logistic regression models were used to identify covariates associated with ER + Hs. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with at least one ER + H was significantly higher in patients with EBC undergoing chemotherapy compared with NCCs (43.4% v 9.4%; P < .001). Patients with EBC were also more likely to have multiple ER + Hs (17.9% v 2.4%; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, comorbidity, receiving a regimen containing docetaxel, and certain geographic regions were associated with increased odds of ER + Hs. CONCLUSION: ER + Hs are common among patients with EBC receiving chemotherapy and significantly higher than among controls. This represents a potential opportunity for quality improvement.

American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition.

OBJECTIVE: To update an evidence-based technology assessment of chemoprevention strategies for breast cancer risk reduction. POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS: Tamoxifen, raloxifene, aromatase inhibition, and fenretinide. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest include breast cancer incidence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and net health benefit. EVIDENCE: A comprehensive, formal literature review was conducted for relevant topics. Testimony was collected from invited experts and interested parties. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) prescribed technology assessment procedure was followed. VALUES: More weight was given to published randomized trials. BENEFITS/HARMS: A woman's decision regarding breast cancer risk reduction strategies is complex and will depend on the importance and weight attributed to information regarding both cancer- and noncancer-related risks and benefits. CONCLUSIONS: For women with a defined 5-year projected breast cancer risk of > or= 1.66%, tamoxifen (at 20 mg/d for 5 years) may be offered to reduce their risk. Risk/benefit models suggest that greatest clinical benefit with least side effects is derived from use of tamoxifen in younger (premenopausal) women (who are less likely to have thromboembolic sequelae and uterine cancer), women without a uterus, and women at higher breast cancer risk. Data do not as yet suggest that tamoxifen provides an overall health benefit or increases survival. In all circumstances, tamoxifen use should be discussed as part of an informed decision-making process with careful consideration of individually calculated risks and benefits. Use of tamoxifen combined with hormone replacement therapy or use of raloxifene, any aromatase inhibitor or inactivator, or fenretinide to lower the risk of developing breast cancer is not recommended outside of a clinical trial setting. This technology assessment represents an ongoing process and recommendations will be updated in a timely matter. VALIDATION: The conclusions were endorsed by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee and the ASCO Board of Directors.