Psychosocial outcomes following germline multigene panel testing in an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the psychological outcomes of germline multigene panel testing, particularly among diverse patients and those with moderate-risk pathogenic variants (PVs). METHODS: Study participants (N = 1264) were counseled and tested with a 25- or 28-gene panel and completed a 3-month postresult survey including the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA). RESULTS: The mean age was 52 years, 80% were female, and 70% had cancer; 45% were non-Hispanic White, 37% were Hispanic, 10% were Asian, 3% were Black, and 5% had another race/ethnicity. Approximately 28% had a high school education or less, and 23% were non-English-speaking. The genetic test results were as follows: 7% had a high-risk PV, 6% had a moderate-risk PV, 35% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 52% were negative. Most participants (92%) had a total MICRA score ≤ 38, which corresponded to a mean response of "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacting negatively to results. A multivariate analysis found that mean total MICRA scores were significantly higher (more uncertainty/distress) among high- and moderate-risk PV carriers (29.7 and 24.8, respectively) than those with a VUS or negative results (17.4 and 16.1, respectively). Having cancer or less education was associated with a significantly higher total MICRA score; race/ethnicity was not associated with the total MICRA score. High- and moderate-risk PV carriers did not differ significantly from one another in the total MICRA score, uncertainty, distress, or positive experiences. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse population undergoing genetic counseling and multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk, the psychological response corresponded to test results and showed low distress and uncertainty. Further studies are needed to assess patient understanding and subsequent cancer screening among patients from diverse backgrounds. LAY SUMMARY: Multigene panel tests for hereditary cancer have become widespread despite concerns about adverse psychological reactions among carriers of moderate-risk pathogenic variants (mutations) and among carriers of variants of uncertain significance. This large study of an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients undergoing panel testing found that 92% "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacted negatively to results. Somewhat higher uncertainty and distress were identified among carriers of high- and moderate-risk pathogenic variants, and lower levels were identified among those with a variant of uncertain significance or a negative result. Although the psychological response corresponded to risk, reactions to testing were favorable, regardless of results.

From the Past to the Present: Insurer Coverage Frameworks for Next-Generation Tumor Sequencing.

Next-generation sequencing promises major advancements in precision medicine but faces considerable challenges with insurance coverage. These challenges are especially important to address in oncology in which next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) holds a particular promise, guiding the use of life-saving or life-prolonging therapies. Payers' coverage decision making on NGTS is challenging because this revolutionary technology pushes the very boundaries of the underlying framework used in coverage decisions. Some experts have called for the adaptation of the coverage framework to make it better equipped for assessing NGTS. Medicare's recent decision to cover NGTS makes this topic particularly urgent to examine. In this article, we discussed the previously proposed approaches for adaptation of the NGTS coverage framework, highlighted their innovations, and outlined remaining gaps in their ability to assess the features of NGTS. We then compared the three approaches with Medicare's national coverage determination for NGTS and discussed its implications for US private payers as well as for other technologies and clinical areas. We focused on US payers because analyses of coverage approaches and policies in the large and complex US health care system may inform similar efforts in other countries. We concluded that further adaptation of the coverage framework will facilitate a better suited assessment of NGTS and future genomics innovations.

Strategies For Clinical Implementation: Precision Oncology At Three Distinct Institutions.

Despite rapid advances in molecular diagnostics and targeted therapeutics, the adoption of precision medicine into clinical oncology workflows has been slow. Questions about clinical utility, inconsistent reimbursement for molecular diagnostics, and limited access to targeted therapies are some of the major hurdles that have hampered clinical adoption. Despite these challenges, providers have invested in precision medicine programs in an ongoing search for innovative care models to deliver improved patient outcomes and achieve economic gains. We describe the precision oncology medicine programs implemented by an integrated delivery system, a community care center, and an academic medical center, to demonstrate the approaches and challenges associated with clinical implementation efforts designed to advance this treatment paradigm. Payer policies that include coverage for broad genomic testing panels would support the broader application of precision medicine, deepen research benefits, and bring targeted therapies to more patients with advanced cancer.

Precision oncology in advanced cancer patients improves overall survival with lower weekly healthcare costs.

The impact of precision oncology on guiding treatment decisions of late-stage cancer patients was previously studied in a retrospective analysis. However, the overall survival and costs were not previously evaluated. We report the overall survival and healthcare costs associated with precision oncology in these patients with advanced cancer. Building on a matched cohort study of 44 patients with metastatic cancer who received all of their care within a single institution, we evaluated the overall survival and healthcare costs for each patient. We analyzed the outcomes of 22 patients who received genomic testing and targeted therapy (precision oncology) between July 1, 2013 and January 31, 2015, and compared to 22 historically controlled patients (control) who received standard chemotherapy (N = 17) or best supportive care (N = 5). The median overall survival was 51.7 weeks for the targeted treatment group and 25.8 weeks for the control group (P = 0.008) when matching on age, gender, histological diagnosis and previous treatment lines. Average costs over the entire period were $2,720 per week for the targeted treatment group and $3,453 per week for the control group, (P = 0.036). A separate analysis of 1,814 patients with late-stage cancer diagnoses found that those who received a targeted cancer treatment (N = 93) had 6.9% lower costs in the last 3 months of life compared with those who did not. These findings suggest that precision oncology may improve overall survival for refractory cancer patients while lowering average per-week healthcare costs, resource utilization and end-of-life costs.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Version 3.2017.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal provide recommendations for the management of patients with high-risk syndromes associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). The NCCN Panel for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal meets at least annually to assess comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant data, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on genes newly associated with CRC risk on multigene panels, the associated evidence, and currently recommended management strategies.

A Retrospective Analysis of Precision Medicine Outcomes in Patients With Advanced Cancer Reveals Improved Progression-Free Survival Without Increased Health Care Costs.

PURPOSE: The advent of genomic diagnostic technologies such as next-generation sequencing has recently enabled the use of genomic information to guide targeted treatment in patients with cancer, an approach known as precision medicine. However, clinical outcomes, including survival and the cost of health care associated with precision cancer medicine, have been challenging to measure and remain largely unreported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a matched cohort study of 72 patients with metastatic cancer of diverse subtypes in the setting of a large, integrated health care delivery system. We analyzed the outcomes of 36 patients who received genomic testing and targeted therapy (precision cancer medicine) between July 1, 2013, and January 31, 2015, compared with 36 historical control patients who received standard chemotherapy (n = 29) or best supportive care (n = 7). RESULTS: The average progression-free survival was 22.9 weeks for the precision medicine group and 12.0 weeks for the control group ( P = .002) with a hazard ratio of 0.47 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.75) when matching on age, sex, histologic diagnosis, and previous lines of treatment. In a subset analysis of patients who received all care within the Intermountain Healthcare system (n = 44), per patient charges per week were $4,665 in the precision treatment group and $5,000 in the control group ( P = .126). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that precision cancer medicine may improve survival for patients with refractory cancer without increasing health care costs. Although the results of this study warrant further validation, this precision medicine approach may be a viable option for patients with advanced cancer.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This is a focused update highlighting the most current NCCN Guidelines for diagnosis and management of Lynch syndrome. Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer, usually resulting from a germline mutation in 1 of 4 DNA mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2), or deletions in the EPCAM promoter. Patients with Lynch syndrome are at an increased lifetime risk, compared with the general population, for colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, and other cancers, including of the stomach and ovary. As of 2016, the panel recommends screening all patients with colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome and provides recommendations for surveillance for early detection and prevention of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement Update: Genetic and Genomic Testing for Cancer Susceptibility.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has long affirmed that the recognition and management of individuals with an inherited susceptibility to cancer are core elements of oncology care. ASCO released its first statement on genetic testing in 1996 and updated that statement in 2003 and 2010 in response to developments in the field. In 2014, the Cancer Prevention and Ethics Committees of ASCO commissioned another update to reflect the impact of advances in this area on oncology practice. In particular, there was an interest in addressing the opportunities and challenges arising from the application of massively parallel sequencing-also known as next-generation sequencing-to cancer susceptibility testing. This technology introduces a new level of complexity into the practice of cancer risk assessment and management, requiring renewed effort on the part of ASCO to ensure that those providing care to patients with cancer receive the necessary education to use this new technology in the most effective, beneficial manner. The purpose of this statement is to explore the challenges of new and emerging technologies in cancer genetics and provide recommendations to ensure their optimal deployment in oncology practice. Specifically, the statement makes recommendations in the following areas: germline implications of somatic mutation profiling, multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility, quality assurance in genetic testing, education of oncology professionals, and access to cancer genetic services.

Clinical Actionability of Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment.

IMPORTANCE: The practice of genetic testing for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) is rapidly evolving owing to the recent introduction of multigene panels. While these tests may identify 40% to 50% more individuals with hereditary cancer gene mutations than does testing for BRCA1/2 alone, whether finding such mutations will alter clinical management is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To define the potential clinical effect of multigene panel testing for HBOC in a clinically representative cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study of patients seen between 2001 and 2014 in 3 large academic medical centers. We prospectively enrolled 1046 individuals who were appropriate candidates for HBOC evaluation and who lacked BRCA1/2 mutations. INTERVENTIONS: We carried out multigene panel testing on all participants, then determined the clinical actionability, if any, of finding non-BRCA1/2 mutations in these and additional comparable individuals. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We evaluated the likelihood of (1) a posttest management change and (2) an indication for additional familial testing, considering gene-specific consensus management guidelines, gene-associated cancer risks, and personal and family history. RESULTS: Among 1046 study participants, 40 BRCA1/2-negative patients (3.8%; 95% CI, 2.8%-5.2%) harbored deleterious mutations, most commonly in moderate-risk breast and ovarian cancer genes (CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2) and Lynch syndrome genes. Among these and an additional 23 mutation-positive individuals enrolled from our clinics, most of the mutations (92%) were consistent with the spectrum of cancer(s) observed in the patient or family, suggesting that these results are clinically significant. Among all 63 mutation-positive patients, additional disease-specific screening and/or prevention measures beyond those based on personal and family history alone would be considered for most (33 [52%] of 63; 95% CI, 40.3%-64.2%). Furthermore, additional familial testing would be considered for those with first-degree relatives (42 [72%] of 58; 95% CI, 59.8%-82.2%) based on potential management changes for mutation-positive relatives. This clinical effect was not restricted to a few of the tested genes because most identified genes could change clinical management for some patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In a clinically representative cohort, multigene panel testing for HBOC risk assessment yielded findings likely to change clinical management for substantially more patients than does BRCA1/2 testing alone. Multigene testing in this setting is likely to alter near-term cancer risk assessment and management recommendations for mutation-affected individuals across a broad spectrum of cancer predisposition genes.

Phase II Study of Gemcitabine, Carboplatin, and Iniparib As Neoadjuvant Therapy for Triple-Negative and BRCA1/2 Mutation-Associated Breast Cancer With Assessment of a Tumor-Based Measure of Genomic Instability: PrECOG 0105.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to assess efficacy, safety, and predictors of response to iniparib in combination with gemcitabine and carboplatin in early-stage triple-negative and BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-arm phase II study enrolled patients with stage I to IIIA (T ≥ 1 cm) estrogen receptor-negative (≤ 5%), progesterone receptor-negative (≤ 5%), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative or BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancer. Neoadjuvant gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) intravenously [IV] on days 1 and 8), carboplatin (area under curve of 2 IV on days 1 and 8), and iniparib (5.6 mg/kg IV on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) were administered every 21 days for four cycles, until the protocol was amended to six cycles. The primary end point was pathologic complete response (no invasive carcinoma in breast or axilla). All patients underwent comprehensive BRCA1/2 genotyping, and homologous recombination deficiency was assessed by loss of heterozygosity (HRD-LOH) in pretreatment core breast biopsies. RESULTS: Among 80 patients, median age was 48 years; 19 patients (24%) had germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations; clinical stage was I (13%), IIA (36%), IIB (36%), and IIIA (15%). Overall pathologic complete response rate in the intent-to-treat population (n = 80) was 36% (90% CI, 27 to 46). Mean HRD-LOH scores were higher in responders compared with nonresponders (P = .02) and remained significant when BRCA1/2 germline mutations carriers were excluded (P = .021). CONCLUSION: Preoperative combination of gemcitabine, carboplatin, and iniparib is active in the treatment of early-stage triple-negative and BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancer. The HRD-LOH assay was able to identify patients with sporadic triple-negative breast cancer lacking a BRCA1/2 mutation, but with an elevated HRD-LOH score, who achieved a favorable pathologic response. Confirmatory controlled trials are warranted.

Next-generation sequencing for hereditary breast and gynecologic cancer risk assessment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize advances in next-generation sequencing and their application to breast and gynecologic cancer risk assessment. RECENT FINDINGS: Next-generation sequencing panels of 6-112 cancer-associated genes are increasingly used in patient care. Studies report a 4-16% prevalence of mutations other than BRCA1/2 among patients who meet evidence-based practice guidelines for BRCA1/2 testing, with a high rate (15-88%) of uninterpretable variants of uncertain significance. Despite uncertainty about results interpretation and communication, there is early evidence of a benefit from multiple-gene sequencing panels for appropriately selected patients. SUMMARY: Multiple-gene sequencing panels appear highly promising for the assessment of breast and gynecologic cancer risk, and they may usefully be administered in the context of cancer genetics expertise and/or clinical research protocols.

Clinical evaluation of a multiple-gene sequencing panel for hereditary cancer risk assessment.

PURPOSE: Multiple-gene sequencing is entering practice, but its clinical value is unknown. We evaluated the performance of a customized germline-DNA sequencing panel for cancer-risk assessment in a representative clinical sample. METHODS: Patients referred for clinical BRCA1/2 testing from 2002 to 2012 were invited to donate a research blood sample. Samples were frozen at -80° C, and DNA was extracted from them after 1 to 10 years. The entire coding region, exon-intron boundaries, and all known pathogenic variants in other regions were sequenced for 42 genes that had cancer risk associations. Potentially actionable results were disclosed to participants. RESULTS: In total, 198 women participated in the study: 174 had breast cancer and 57 carried germline BRCA1/2 mutations. BRCA1/2 analysis was fully concordant with prior testing. Sixteen pathogenic variants were identified in ATM, BLM, CDH1, CDKN2A, MUTYH, MLH1, NBN, PRSS1, and SLX4 among 141 women without BRCA1/2 mutations. Fourteen participants carried 15 pathogenic variants, warranting a possible change in care; they were invited for targeted screening recommendations, enabling early detection and removal of a tubular adenoma by colonoscopy. Participants carried an average of 2.1 variants of uncertain significance among 42 genes. CONCLUSION: Among women testing negative for BRCA1/2 mutations, multiple-gene sequencing identified 16 potentially pathogenic mutations in other genes (11.4%; 95% CI, 7.0% to 17.7%), of which 15 (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.5% to 16.9%) prompted consideration of a change in care, enabling early detection of a precancerous colon polyp. Additional studies are required to quantify the penetrance of identified mutations and determine clinical utility. However, these results suggest that multiple-gene sequencing may benefit appropriately selected patients.

HER2 expression in gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in a US population: clinicopathologic analysis with proposed approach to HER2 assessment.

Recent evidence suggests that trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody which targets HER2, in combination with chemotherapy is a therapeutic option in patients with HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Widely accepted guidelines for HER2 testing in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer have not been established. The purpose of this study was to analyze the incidence and patterns of HER2 expression in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer using a tissue microarray approach, which closely simulates small biopsies routinely tested for HER2. One hundred sixty-nine patients, including 99 primary gastric adenocarcinomas and 70 primary gastroesophageal junction carcinomas were analyzed for HER2 overexpression by immunohistochemistry and HER2 gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization using scoring schemes proposed by both American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) and the results of the recently published Trastuzumab for Gastric Cancer (ToGA) trial. In our analysis, 19 adenocarcinomas were HER2 positive, defined as either a HER2/CEP17 ratio >2.2 and/or a 3+ HER2 immunohistochemistry score with either the ASCO/CAP or ToGA scoring schemes. Of the 19 HER2-positive adenocarcinomas, 8 (42%) exhibited a characteristic strongly intense basolateral membranous staining pattern which would be interpreted as negative (1+) using the accepted ASCO/CAP scoring scheme for HER2 assessment in breast carcinoma, but were correctly labeled as 3+ positive using the proposed ToGA scoring scheme. Of the 19 HER2-positive adenocarcinomas, 8 (42%) demonstrated heterogeneous HER2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry. Twelve of 99 (12%) gastric carcinomas were positive for HER2. Of these, HER2 was more often identified in intestinal-type adenocarcinomas (10 of 52, 19%) compared with diffuse (2 of 34, 6%) adenocarcinoma. Seven of 70 (10%) gastroesophageal junction carcinomas were positive for HER2 of which all were intestinal type (7 of 58, 12%). HER2 status or primary tumor site did not correlate with patient survival. Gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas typically display a characteristic basolateral membranous pattern of HER2 expression which is often heterogeneous rendering routine evaluation of HER2 status on small tissue samples challenging.