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.

An evaluation of memory and attention in BRCA mutation carriers using an online cognitive assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of various surgical, hormonal, and lifestyle factors on memory and attention in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. METHODS: BRCA mutation carriers enrolled in a longitudinal study were invited to complete an online brain health assessment tool designed to screen for cognitive deficits. Four measures of memory and executive attention were assessed individually, and an overall score was compiled adjusting for age. Exposures, including preventive surgery, hormone use, and lifestyle factors, were captured by questionnaire. Performance on each of the 5 subtasks was analyzed according to various exposures. Analysis of covariance was used to compare overall scores. RESULTS: In total, 880 women completed the online cognitive assessment. The average age of the participants was 54 years (range, 23-86 years). The mean overall test score was 54.4 (range, 0-93). The individual subtask scores declined with age at test completion (P < .0001) and increased with level of education (P ≤ .01). Women who underwent a preventive oophorectomy had a significantly higher overall score compared with women who did not undergo this surgery (55.5 vs 50.5; P = .01). Reconstructive breast surgery was also associated with a higher overall score (56.5 vs 52.3; P = .005). Chemotherapy and hormone-replacement therapy were not predictive of the overall score. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are reassuring to high-risk women who undergo early surgical menopause for their cancer predisposition. Further studies are needed to evaluate cognitive function over time when memory deficits become more prevalent.

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.

An update on genetic risk assessment and prevention: the role of genetic testing panels in breast cancer.

Introduction: In the past 5 years, multi-gene panels have replaced the practice of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing in cases of suspected inherited breast cancer susceptibility. A variety of genes have been included on these panels without certainty of their clinical utility. Pertinent current and historical literature was reviewed to provide an up-to-date snapshot of the changing landscape of the use of gene panel tests in the context of breast cancer. Areas covered: Following a recent review of the evidence, 10 genes have been found to have definitive evidence of increased breast cancer risk with variable penetrance. Here, we review the recent changes to the practice of multi-gene panel use in breast cancer diagnoses, including an update on next generation sequencing, alternative models of genetic testing, considerations when ordering these panel tests, and recommendations for management in identified carriers for a variety of genes. A comparison of screening recommendations and carrier frequencies from recent studies is also explored. Lastly, we consider what the future of hereditary oncologic genetic testing holds. Expert opinion: The transition to multi-gene panels in breast cancer patients has improved the likelihood of capturing a rare variant in a well-established gene associated with hereditary breast cancer (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2, TP53). There is also an increase in the likelihood of uncovering an uncertain result. This could be in the form of a variant of uncertain significance, or a pathogenic variant in a gene with questionable breast cancer risk-association. Concurrently, a changing landscape of who orders genetic tests will improve access to genetic testing. This pervasiveness of genetic testing must be accompanied with increased genetic literacy in all health-care providers, and access to support from genetics professionals for management of patients and at-risk family members.

Selecting a BRCA risk assessment model for use in a familial cancer clinic.

BACKGROUND: Risk models are used to calculate the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. We evaluated the performances of currently-used risk models among patients from a large familial program using the criteria of high sensitivity, simple data collection and entry and BRCA score reporting. METHODS: Risk calculations were performed by applying the BRCAPRO, Manchester, Penn II, Myriad II, FHAT, IBIS and BOADICEA models to 200 non-BRCA carriers and 100 BRCA carriers, consecutively tested between August 1995 and March 2006. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were determined and sensitivity and specificity were calculated at the conventional testing thresholds. In addition, subset analyses were performed for low and high risk probands. RESULTS: The BRCAPRO, Penn II, Myriad II, FHAT and BOADICEA models all have similar AUCs of approximately 0.75 for BRCA status. The Manchester and IBIS models have lower AUCs (0. and 0.47 respectively). At the conventional testing thresholds, the sensitivities and specificities for a BRCA mutation were, respectively, as follows: BRCAPRO (0.75, 0.62), Manchester (0.58,0.71), Penn II (0.93,0.31), Myriad II (0.71,0.63), FHAT (0.70,0.63), IBIS (0.20,0.74), BOADICEA (0.70, 0.65). CONCLUSION: The Penn II model most closely met the criteria we established and this supports the use of this model for identifying individuals appropriate for genetic testing at our facility. These data are applicable to other familial clinics provided that variations in sample populations are taken into consideration.