A Randomized Trial of Two Remote Health Care Delivery Models on the Uptake of Genetic Testing and Impact on Patient-Reported Psychological Outcomes in Families With Pancreatic Cancer: The Genetic Education, Risk Assessment, and Testing (GENERATE) Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Genetic testing uptake for cancer susceptibility in family members of patients with cancer is suboptimal. Among relatives of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), The GENetic Education, Risk Assessment, and TEsting (GENERATE) study evaluated 2 online genetic education/testing delivery models and their impact on patient-reported psychological outcomes. METHODS: Eligible participants had ≥1 first-degree relative with PDAC, or ≥1 first-/second-degree relative with PDAC with a known pathogenic germline variant in 1 of 13 PDAC predisposition genes. Participants were randomized by family, between May 8, 2019, and June 1, 2021. Arm 1 participants underwent a remote interactive telemedicine session and online genetic education. Arm 2 participants were offered online genetic education only. All participants were offered germline testing. The primary outcome was genetic testing uptake, compared by permutation tests and mixed-effects logistic regression models. We hypothesized that Arm 1 participants would have a higher genetic testing uptake than Arm 2. Validated surveys were administered to assess patient-reported anxiety, depression, and cancer worry at baseline and 3 months postintervention. RESULTS: A total of 424 families were randomized, including 601 participants (n = 296 Arm 1; n = 305 Arm 2), 90% of whom completed genetic testing (Arm 1 [87%]; Arm 2 [93%], P = .014). Arm 1 participants were significantly less likely to complete genetic testing compared with Arm 2 participants (adjusted ratio [Arm1/Arm2] 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.98). Among participants who completed patient-reported psychological outcomes questionnaires (Arm 1 [n = 194]; Arm 2 [n = 206]), the intervention did not affect mean anxiety, depression, or cancer worry scores. CONCLUSIONS: Remote genetic education and testing can be a successful and complementary option for delivering genetics care. (Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT03762590).

Development and evaluation of INT2GRATE: a platform for comprehensive assessment of the role of germline variants informed by tumor signature profile in Lynch syndrome.

The presence of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes leads to uncertainty in the clinical management of patients being evaluated for Lynch syndrome (LS). Currently, there is no platform to systematically use tumor-derived evidence alongside germline data for the assessment of VUS in relation to LS. We developed INT2GRATE (INTegrated INTerpretation of GeRmline And Tumor gEnomes) to leverage information from the tumor genome to inform the potential role of constitutional VUS in MMR genes. INT2GRATE platform has two components: a comprehensive evidence-based decision tree that integrates well-established clinico-genomic data from both the tumor and constitutional genomes to help inform the potential relevance of germline VUS in LS; and a web-based user interface (UI). With the INT2GRATE decision tree operating in the backend, INT2GRATE UI enables the front-end collection of comprehensive clinical genetics and tumor-derived evidence for each VUS to facilitate INT2GRATE assessment and data sharing in the publicly accessible ClinVar database. The performance of the INT2GRATE decision tree was assessed by qualitative retrospective analysis of genomic data from 5057 cancer patients with MMR alterations which included 52 positive control cases. Of 52 positive control cases with LS and pathogenic MMR alterations, 23 had all the testing parameters for the evaluation by INT2GRATE. All these variants were correctly categorized as INT2GRATE POSITIVE. The stringent INT2GRATE decision tree flagged 29 of positive cases by identifying the absence or unusual presentation of specific evidence, highlighting the conservative INT2GRATE logic in favor of a higher degree of confidence in the results. The remaining 99% of cases were correctly categorized as INCONCLUSIVE due to the absence of LS criteria and ≥1 tumor parameters. INT2GRATE is an effective platform for clinical and genetics professionals to collect and assess clinical genetics and complimentary tumor-derived information for each germline VUS in suspected LS patients. Furthermore, INT2GRATE enables the collation of integrated tumor-derived evidence relevant to germline VUS in LS, and sharing them with a large community, a practice that is needed in precision oncology.

Development and Validation of the PREMMplus Model for Multigene Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment.

PURPOSE: With the availability of multigene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer risk assessment, clinicians need to assess the likelihood of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) across numerous genes in parallel. This study's aim was to develop and validate a clinical prediction model (PREMMplus) for MGPT risk assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PREMMplus was developed in a single-institution cohort of 7,280 individuals who had undergone MGPT. Logistic regression models with Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator regularization were used to examine candidate predictors (age, sex, ethnicity, and personal/family history of 18 cancers/neoplasms) to estimate one's likelihood of carrying PGVs in 19 genes (broadly categorized by phenotypic overlap and/or relative penetrance: 11 category A [APC, BRCA1/2, CDH1, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, biallelic MUTYH, PMS2, and TP53] and eight category B genes [ATM, BRIP1, CDKN2A, CHEK2, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, and RAD51D]). Model performance was validated in nonoverlapping data sets of 8,691 and 14,849 individuals with prior MGPT ascertained from clinic- and laboratory-based settings, respectively. RESULTS: PREMMplus (score ≥ 2.5%) had 93.9%, 91.7%, and 89.3% sensitivity and 98.3%, 97.5%, and 97.8% negative-predictive value (NPV) for identifying category A gene PGV carriers in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. PREMMplus assessment (score ≥ 2.5%) had 89.9%, 85.6%, and 84.2% sensitivity and 95.0%, 93.5%, and 93.5% NPV, respectively, for identifying category A/B gene PGV carriers. Decision curve analyses support MGPT for individuals predicted to have ≥ 2.5% probability of a PGV. CONCLUSION: PREMMplus accurately identifies individuals with PGVs in a diverse spectrum of cancer susceptibility genes with high sensitivity/NPV. Individuals with PREMMplus scores ≥ 2.5% should be considered for MGPT.

Assessment of genomic alterations in non-syndromic von Hippel-Lindau: Insight from integrating somatic and germline next generation sequencing genomic data.

Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) syndrome is a hereditary cancer genetic condition associated with inactivating pathogenic alterations in the VHL tumor suppressor gene located at 3p (short arm of chromosome 3). Classic features of VHL include clear cell renal cell carcinoma, hemangioblastomas of the brain, spinal cord, and retina, pheochromocytoma, pancreatic cysts, and neuroendocrine tumors. Two sets of genomic information may be available from patients with VHL: the germline data showing the constitutional genetic profile and somatic profile obtained from patient tumor(s). Here we present both somatic and germline dataset from heterozygous carriers of germline VHL variants who exhibit non-syndromic VHL phenotypes. This data description article accompanies the paper "Pathogenicity of VHL variants in families with non-syndromic von Hippel-Lindau phenotypes: an integrated evaluation of germline and somatic genomic results'' by Huma Q. Rana, Diane R. Koeller, Alison Schwartz, Danielle K. Manning, Katherine A. Schneider, Katherine M. Krajewski, Toni K. Choueiri, Neal I. Lindeman, Judy E. Garber, Arezou A. Ghazani. We provide next generation sequencing (NGS) data obtained from DNA from tumors (renal cancer, bladder cancer, and cerebral hemangioblastoma) of three VHL carriers. The somatic dataset was analyzed for single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and copy number variants (CNVs) in 447 cancer genes, and structural variation (SVs) in 191 regions across 60 genes for rearrangements. We also present germline raw NGS data and analyzed SNV and CNV data in exonic regions of 133 hereditary cancer genes obtained from the peripheral blood of two VHL carriers.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 1.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes, and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with syndromes associated with an increased risk of these cancers. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments, examine relevant new data, and reevaluate and update recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding criteria for high-penetrance genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer beyond BRCA1/2, pancreas screening and genes associated with pancreatic cancer, genetic testing for the purpose of systemic therapy decision-making, and testing for people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

Li-Fraumeni Exploration Consortium Data Coordinating Center: Building an Interactive Web-Based Resource for Collaborative International Cancer Epidemiology Research for a Rare Condition.

BACKGROUND: The success of multisite collaborative research relies on effective data collection, harmonization, and aggregation strategies. Data Coordination Centers (DCC) serve to facilitate the implementation of these strategies. The utility of a DCC can be particularly relevant for research on rare diseases where collaboration from multiple sites to amass large aggregate datasets is essential. However, approaches to building a DCC have been scarcely documented. METHODS: The Li-Fraumeni Exploration (LiFE) Consortium's DCC was created using multiple open source packages, including LAM/G Application (Linux, Apache, MySQL, Grails), Extraction-Transformation-Loading (ETL) Pentaho Data Integration Tool, and the Saiku-Mondrian client. This document serves as a resource for building a rare disease DCC for multi-institutional collaborative research. RESULTS: The primary scientific and technological objective to create an online central repository into which data from all participating sites could be deposited, harmonized, aggregated, disseminated, and analyzed was completed. The cohort now include 2,193 participants from six contributing sites, including 1,354 individuals from families with a pathogenic or likely variant in TP53. Data on cancer diagnoses are also available. Challenges and lessons learned are summarized. CONCLUSIONS: The methods leveraged mitigate challenges associated with successfully developing a DCC's technical infrastructure, data harmonization efforts, communications, and software development and applications. IMPACT: These methods can serve as a framework in establishing other collaborative research efforts. Data from the consortium will serve as a great resource for collaborative research to improve knowledge on, and the ability to care for, individuals and families with Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

Customized breast cancer risk assessment in an ambulatory clinic: a portal for identifying women at risk.

PURPOSE: Existing high-risk clinic models focus on patients with known risk factors, potentially missing many high-risk patients. Here we describe our experience implementing universal risk assessment in an ambulatory breast center. METHODS: Since May 2017, all breast center patients completed a customized intake survey addressing known breast cancer risk factors and lifestyle choices. Patient characteristics, family history, risk scores, and lifestyle factors were examined; patients with high-risk breast lesions were excluded. Patients were considered at increased risk by model thresholds Gail 5-year risk > 1.7% (35-59 years), Gail 5-year risk > 5.5% (≥ 60 years), or Tyrer-Cuzick (T-C) v7 lifetime risk > 20% (any age). RESULTS: From May 2017-April 2018, there were 874 eligible patients-420 (48%) referred for risk assessment (RA) and 454 (52%) for non-specific breast complaints (NSBC). Overall, 389 (45%) were at increased risk of breast cancer. Gail 5-year risks were similar between RA and NSBC patients. However, RA patients more frequently met criteria by T-C score (P = 0.02). Of all patients at increased risk, 149 (39%) were overweight (BMI > 25) or obese (BMI > 30) and only 159 (41%) met recommended exercise standards. NSBC patients who met criteria were more frequently smokers (8% vs 1%, P < 0.01); all other demographic/lifestyle factors were similar among high-risk patients regardless of referral reason. CONCLUSIONS: Universal risk assessment in a comprehensive breast health center identified 45% of our population to be at increased risk of breast cancer. This clinical care model provides a unique opportunity to identify and address modifiable risk factors among women at risk.

Multicenter Phase II Study of Lurbinectedin in BRCA-Mutated and Unselected Metastatic Advanced Breast Cancer and Biomarker Assessment Substudy.

PURPOSE: This multicenter phase II trial evaluated lurbinectedin (PM01183), a selective inhibitor of active transcription of protein-coding genes, in patients with metastatic breast cancer. A unicenter translational substudy assessed potential mechanisms of lurbinectedin resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two arms were evaluated according to germline BRCA1/2 status: BRCA1/2 mutated (arm A; n = 54) and unselected ( BRCA1/2 wild-type or unknown status; arm B; n = 35). Lurbinectedin starting dose was a 7-mg flat dose and later, 3.5 mg/m2 in arm A. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). The translational substudy of resistance mechanisms included exome sequencing (n = 13) and in vivo experiments with patient-derived xenografts (n = 11) from BRCA1/2-mutated tumors. RESULTS: ORR was 41% (95% CI, 28% to 55%) in arm A and 9% (95% CI, 2% to 24%) in arm B. In arm A, median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 6.0 months), and median overall survival was 20.0 months (95% CI, 11.8 to 26.6 months). Patients with BRCA2 mutations showed an ORR of 61%, median progression-free survival of 5.9 months, and median overall survival of 26.6 months. The safety profile improved with lurbinectedin dose adjustment to body surface area. The most common nonhematologic adverse events seen at 3.5 mg/m2 were nausea (74%; grade 3, 5%) and fatigue (74%; grade 3, 21%). Neutropenia was the most common severe hematologic adverse event (grade 3, 47%; grade 4, 10%). Exome sequencing showed mutations in genes related to the nucleotide excision repair pathway in four of seven tumors at primary or acquired resistance and in one patient with short-term stable disease. In vivo, sensitivity to cisplatin and lurbinectedin was evidenced in lurbinectedin-resistant (one of two) and cisplatin-resistant (two of three) patient-derived xenografts. CONCLUSION: Lurbinectedin showed noteworthy activity in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. Response and survival was notable in those with BRCA2 mutations. Additional clinical development in this subset of patients with metastatic breast cancer is warranted.

A comparison of cancer risk assessment and testing outcomes in patients from underserved vs. tertiary care settings.

In cancer genetics, technological advances (next generation sequencing) and the expansion of genetic test options have resulted in lowered costs and increased access to genetic testing. Despite this, the majority of patients utilizing cancer genetics services lack diversity of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Through retrospective chart review, we compared outcomes of cancer genetics consultations at a tertiary cancer center and a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) (58 tertiary and 23 FQHC patients) from 2013 to 2015. The two groups differed in race, ethnicity, use of translator services, and type of insurance coverage. There were also significant differences in completeness of family history information, with more missing information about relatives in the FQHC group. In spite of these differences, genetic testing rates among those offered testing were comparable across the two groups with 74% of tertiary patients and 60% of FQHC patients completing testing. Implementation of community-based cancer genetics outreach clinics represents an opportunity to improve access to genetic counseling services, but more research is needed to develop effective counseling models for diverse patient populations.

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.

TBCRC009: A Multicenter Phase II Clinical Trial of Platinum Monotherapy With Biomarker Assessment in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The identification of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) who are expected to benefit from platinum-based chemotherapy is of interest. We conducted a single-arm phase II clinical trial of single-agent platinum for mTNBC with biomarker correlates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mTNBC received first- or second-line cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) or carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve 6) by physician's choice once every 3 weeks. Coprimary end points were objective response rate (RR) and response prediction by p63/p73 gene expression. Secondary and exploratory end points included toxicity assessment, RR in cisplatin versus carboplatin, and RR in molecularly defined subgroups, including BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. RESULTS: Patients (N = 86; 69 as first-line therapy) received cisplatin (n = 43) or carboplatin (n = 43). RR was 25.6% (95% CI, 16.8% to 36%) and was numerically higher with cisplatin (32.6%) than with carboplatin (18.7%). RR was 54.5% in patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 11). In patients without BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 66), exploratory analyses showed that a BRCA-like genomic instability signature (n = 32) discriminated responding and nonresponding tumors (mean homologous recombination deficiency-loss of heterozygosity/homologous recombination deficiency-large-scale state transitions [HRD-LOH/HRD-LST] scores were 12.68 and 5.11, respectively), whereas predefined analysis by p63/p73 expression status (n = 61), p53 and PIK3CA mutation status (n = 53), or PAM50 gene expression subtype (n = 55) did not. Five of the six long-term responders alive at a median of 4.5 years lacked germline BRCA1/2 mutations, and two of them had increased tumor HRD-LOH/HRD-LST scores. CONCLUSION: Platinum agents are active in mTNBC, especially in patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations. A measure of tumor DNA repair function may identify patients without mutations who could benefit from platinum therapy agents. Prospective controlled confirmatory trials are warranted.

Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian, version 1.2014.

During the past few years, several genetic aberrations that may contribute to increased risks for development of breast and/or ovarian cancers have been identified. The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian focus specifically on the assessment of genetic mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2, TP53, and PTEN, and recommend approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these mutations. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines includes recommendations regarding diagnostic criteria and management of patients with Cowden Syndrome/PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome.

Multimodal assessment of protein functional deficiency supports pathogenicity of BRCA1 p.V1688del.

Unequivocal discrimination between neutral variants and deleterious mutations is crucial for appropriate counseling of individuals with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence change. An increasing number of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are being identified, the unclassified biological effect of which poses clinical concerns. A multifactorial likelihood-based approach recently suggested disease causality for BRCA1 p.V1688del, a VUS recurrent in Italian breast/ovarian cancer families. Whether and how this single amino acid deletion in the BRCA1 COOH terminus (BRCT) domain affects the function of the mutant protein (DeltaValBRCA1) has not been elucidated. We undertook comprehensive functional characterization of DeltaValBRCA1, comprising comparative structural modeling, analysis of protein stability and associations, and analysis of DNA repair function. Our model predicted BRCT domain destabilization and folding disruption caused by BRCA1 p.V1688del. Consistently, the recombinant DeltaValBRCA1 was less stable than wild-type BRCA1 and, unlike the latter, failed to associate with BRIP1, CtIP, and Rap80 and to relocalize to sites of DNA damage. Yeast two-hybrid analysis revealed a compromised interaction with FHL2 and KPNA2, which is likely responsible for improper subcellular localization of DeltaValBRCA1. In addition, we found four new breast/ovarian cancer families of Italian ancestry who carried this sequence alteration. These results provide the first evidence of the effect of BRCA1 p.V1688del on protein stability and function, supporting the view that it is a deleterious mutation. Multimodal analyses like ours could advance understanding of tumor suppression by BRCA1 and ultimately contribute to developing efficient strategies for screening and characterization of VUS.

Guidelines for genetic risk assessment of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: early disagreements and low utilization.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1/2 testing is one of the most well-established genetic tests to predict cancer risk. Guidelines are available to help clinicians determine who will benefit most from testing. OBJECTIVE: To identify women at high risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and estimate their awareness of and experience with genetic testing for cancer risk. DESIGN: Analyses of the 2000 and 2005 National Health Interview Surveys. PARTICIPANTS: Women with no personal history of breast or ovarian cancer (n = 35,116). MEASUREMENTS: Risk of hereditary breast or ovarian cancer based on self-reported family history of cancer and national guidelines; self-reported awareness of genetic testing for cancer risk; discussion of genetic testing for cancer risk with a health professional; having undergone genetic testing for breast/ovarian cancer risk. RESULTS: Using guideline criteria, 0.96% of women were identified as being at high risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Among high-risk women, 54.04% were aware of genetic testing for cancer risk, 10.39% had discussed genetic testing with a health professional, and 1.41% had undergone testing for breast/ovarian cancer risk. Adjusting for survey year, high-risk women were more likely than average-risk women to have heard of genetic testing for cancer risk (RR, 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.4), to have discussed genetic testing with a health professional (RR 5.2, 95% CI 3.6-7.4), and to have undergone genetic testing for breast/ovarian cancer risk (RR 6.8, 95% CI 2.6-18.0). CONCLUSIONS: We find low provision of guideline-recommended advice to women for whom testing may be appropriate and of significant clinical benefit.

Brief assessment of parents' attitudes toward testing minor children for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer genes: development and validation of the Pediatric BRCA1/2 Testing Attitudes Scale (P-TAS).

OBJECTIVE: Predictive genetic testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer risk (BRCA1/2 testing) is not recommended for minor children due to its lack of immediate medical benefit and potential psychological risk. Yet, tested mothers are often interested in learning about their children's cancer risks via pediatric BRCA1/2 testing, raising a host of bioethical concerns. However, no reliable or valid tool exists to formally gauge parents' interest in such testing. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a new measure for use in genetic research and consultation, known as the Pediatric BRCA1/2 Testing Attitudes Scale (P-TAS). METHODS: After pretest genetic counseling and provision of a blood sample for BRCA1/2 testing, the P-TAS was administered to 187 mothers of children between 8- and 21-years-old. The measure was also given to 96 of the mothers' nontested co-parents. Analyses of the factor structure and psychometric properties of the measure were performed in mothers and confirmed in their co-parents. RESULTS: The two factors of the P-TAS, labeled Attitudes and Beliefs (Factor 1) and Decision Making and Communication (Factor 2), accounted for 62.9% of the variance and were reliable (Cronbach's coefficient alphas =.70 and .90, respectively); the structure and properties were largely confirmed among co-parents. Validity was indicated through its convergence with related constructs. CONCLUSIONS: This new tool may be integrated into genetic counseling research to better assess parents' attitudes and interests in pediatric BRCA1/2 testing. Such information may help guide ongoing discussions about the appropriateness of testing in adolescent or young adult children.

American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: the role of the oncologist in cancer prevention and risk assessment.

Oncologists have a critical opportunity to utilize risk assessment and cancer prevention strategies to interrupt the initiation or progression of cancer in cancer survivors and individuals at high risk of developing cancer. Expanding knowledge about the natural history and prognosis of cancers positions oncologists to advise patients regarding the risk of second malignancies and treatment-related cancers. In addition, as recognized experts in the full spectrum of cancer care, oncologists are afforded opportunities for involvement in community-based cancer prevention activities. Although oncologists are currently providing many cancer prevention and risk assessment services to their patients, economic barriers exist, including inadequate or lack of insurance, that may compromise uniform patient access to these services. Additionally, insufficient reimbursement for existing and developing interventions may discourage patient access to these services. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the medical society representing cancer specialists involved in patient care and clinical research, is committed to supporting oncologists in their wide-ranging involvement in cancer prevention. This statement on risk assessment and prevention counseling, although not intended to be a comprehensive overview of cancer prevention describes the current role of oncologists in risk assessment and prevention; provides examples of risk assessment and prevention activities that should be offered by oncologists; identifies potential opportunities for coordination between oncologists and primary care physicians in prevention education and coordination of care for cancer survivors; describes ASCO's involvement in education and training of oncologists regarding prevention; and proposes improvement in the payment environment to encourage patient access to these services.