Challenges and Errors in Genetic Testing: The Fifth Case Series.

PURPOSE: In this ongoing case series, 33 genetic testing cases are documented in which tests were recommended, ordered, interpreted, or used incorrectly and/or in which clinicians faced challenges related to history/reports provided by patients or laboratories. METHODS: An invitation to submit cases of challenges or errors in genetic testing was issued to the general National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv, the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group members, as part of a case series with Precision Oncology News, and via social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). Deidentified clinical documentation was requested and reviewed when available. Thirty-three cases were submitted, reviewed, and accepted. A thematic analysis was performed. Submitters were asked to approve cases before submission. RESULTS: All cases took place in the United States, involved hereditary cancer testing and/or findings in cancer predisposition genes, and involved medical-grade genetic testing, direct-to-consumer testing, or research genetic testing. In 9 cases, test results were misinterpreted, leading to incorrect screening or risk-reducing procedures being performed/recommended. In 5 cases, incorrect or unnecessary testing was ordered/recommended. In 3 cases, incorrect clinical diagnoses were made, or opportunities for diagnoses were delayed. In 3 cases, errors or challenges arose related to medical intervention after testing or reported genetic diagnosis. In 2 cases, physicians provided incorrect information related to the inheritance pattern of a syndrome. In 2 cases, there were challenges related to the interpretation of genetic variants. In 2 cases, challenges arose after direct-to-consumer testing. One case involved test results that should never have been reported based on sample quality. In 1 case, a patient presented a falsified test result. In 5 cases, multiple errors were made. DISCUSSION: As genetic testing continues to become more complicated and common, it is critical that patients and nongenetics providers have access to accurate and timely genetic counseling information. Even as multiple medical bodies highlight the value of genetic counselors (GCs), tension exists in the genomics community as GCs work toward licensure and Medicare provider status. It is critical that health care communities leverage, rather than restrict, the expertise and experience of GCs so that patients can benefit from, and not be harmed by, genetic testing. In order to responsibly democratize genomics, it will be important for genetics and nongenetic health care providers to collaborate and use alternative service delivery models and technology solutions at point of care. To deliver on the promise of precision medicine, accurate resources and tools must be utilized.

Differences in referral patterns based on race for women at high-risk for ovarian cancer in the southeast: Results from a Gynecologic Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To compare referral patterns, genetic testing and pathogenic variant rates in Black women (BW) and White women (WW) in a large academic Gynecologic Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic (GCRAC). METHODS: Cross sectional study of an IRB-approved prospective, cohort study from a GCRAC. Data evaluated included: age, race, referral provider specialty and indication, genetic testing frequency, as well as frequency and types of pathogenic variants. RESULTS: 588 WW and 57 BW were evaluated from 1/2010-12/2015. Although approximately one-third of BW and WW were referred for family history alone, referral indications varied. BW were more likely referred for a known pathogenic variant (20.0% vs. 6.2%) although less likely referred for a personal history of ovarian cancer (24.0% vs. 46.8%; p = 0.0023). While gynecologic oncologists referred most patients (BW 43.6% vs. WW 63.0%), BW were more likely to be referred by surgical oncologist (23.0% vs. 12.8%) or genetic counselor (12.8% vs. 5.9%) than WW (p = 0.0234). Referral from non-OBGYN primary care providers was <3% in both groups. Genetic testing rates were similar in both races (82.4% vs. 85.5%). Rates of BRCA1 mutations (12.7% vs. 11.5%) were similar; however, BW had more BRCA2 mutations (21.3% vs. 9.5%; p = 0.0194). CONCLUSIONS: Since BW are more likely to be referred by surgical oncology or genetics counselor, breast clinics might be an entry point to ensure genetic counseling and testing. Continued efforts to increase awareness regarding the importance of patient referral at the primary care level may help identify the subset of women not currently undergoing counseling and testing.

Characteristics of African American women at high-risk for ovarian cancer in the southeast: Results from a Gynecologic Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic.

OBJECTIVES: Describe patient characteristics in African American (AA) women seen for gynecologic cancer related genetic counseling at a large southeastern comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: We reviewed an IRB approved, prospective observational cohort of patients from a Gynecologic Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic. Data evaluated included personal cancer history, family history, frequency of genetic testing, frequency/type of genetic mutations, and frequency of surgical intervention. Standard statistical statistics were utilized. RESULTS: 1227 patients were evaluated from 2003 to 2015, of which 95 (7.7%) were AA. Sixteen patients had a personal history of ovarian cancer. 21 women (22%) underwent genetic counseling only; subsequent genetic testing was not recommended based on absence of risk factors. Of the seventy-four AA patients in whom genetic testing was recommended, sixty-six (69.5%) completed testing. Of women tested, 37 (56%) had abnormal results. Eight and 14 patients had pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively. Two were found to have pathogenic PALB2 variants; one had a pathogenic ATM variant and one constitutional MLH1 epimutation case was identified. Eleven had BRCA variants of uncertain significance. Of the patients with abnormal testing, six of 22 women with pathogenic BRCA variants underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that in a region where AAs represent 27% of the population, the proportion of AA patients referred to a Gynecologic Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic remains low. Pathogenic variant and variant of uncertain significance rates were high in patients tested, likely representing a selection bias of high-risk patients. Endeavors should continue to identify minorities at risk for ovarian cancer and institute measures to provide thorough genetic counseling and testing.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with a syndrome. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. The NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding risk management for carriers of moderately penetrant genetic mutations associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2015.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling and risk assessment and management for hereditary cancer syndromes. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer and are intended to assist with clinical and shared decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points of the 2015 NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meeting. Major discussion topics this year included multigene testing, risk management recommendations for less common genetic mutations, and salpingectomy for ovarian cancer risk reduction. The panel also discussed revisions to genetic testing criteria that take into account ovarian cancer histology and personal history of pancreatic cancer.