Promoters of BRCA testing under insurance coverage for non-metastatic breast cancer patients in Japan: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the barriers to and promoters of taking BRCA testing, after the start of national healthcare insurance coverage for non-metastatic breast cancer patients in Japan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multi-center, retrospective, cohort study. We included stage 0 to III breast cancer patients who were diagnosed and met the criteria for insurance coverage of BRCA testing between April 2020 and December 2021. We examined the association between BRCA testing and possible exposures: breast cancer diagnosis at 45 years or younger, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) diagnosis at the age of 60 or younger, two or more primary breast cancers, family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer in the third degree of relatives, male breast cancer, medical expense limits, and parity. We used logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: We included 222 patients and 123 (55.4%) of them underwent the test. In univariate analysis, a family history of ovarian cancer (odds ratio (OR) 10.59; 95% CI 1.35-82.96, p = 0.025), diagnosis of breast cancer at the age of 45 or younger (OR 2.78; 95% CI 1.52-5.14, p = 0.0009), and diagnosis of TNBC at the age of 60 or younger (OR 3.95; 95% CI 1.55-10.07, p = 0.004) were associated with taking the test. After multivariate logistic regression analysis, a family history of ovarian cancer (adjusted OR 12.80; 95% CI 1.51-108.80, p = 0.0195), diagnosis of breast cancer at the age of 45 or younger (adjusted OR 4.43; 95% CI 1.98-9.90, p = 0.0003), and TNBC at the age of 60 or younger (adjusted OR 5.28; 95% CI 1.90-14.66, p = 0.0014) were consistently associated. CONCLUSION: For non-metastatic breast cancer patients whose BRCA testing is covered by insurance, costs would no longer be a definite barrier. Physicians should keep in mind that a family history of ovarian cancer, breast cancer diagnosis at 45 years of age or younger and TNBC diagnosis at 60 years of age or younger are strong promoters.

Optimization of prediction methods for risk assessment of pathogenic germline variants in the Japanese population.

Predicting pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in breast cancer patients is important for selecting optimal therapeutics and implementing risk reduction strategies. However, PGV risk factors and the performance of prediction methods in the Japanese population remain unclear. We investigated clinicopathological risk factors using the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) breast cancer risk evaluation tool to predict BRCA PGVs in unselected Japanese breast cancer patients (n = 1,995). Eleven breast cancer susceptibility genes were analyzed using target-capture sequencing in a previous study; the PGV prevalence in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 was 0.75%, 3.1%, and 0.45%, respectively. Significant associations were found between the presence of BRCA PGVs and early disease onset, number of familial cancer cases (up to third-degree relatives), triple-negative breast cancer patients under the age of 60, and ovarian cancer history (all P < .0001). In total, 816 patients (40.9%) satisfied the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for recommending multigene testing. The sensitivity and specificity of the NCCN criteria for discriminating PGV carriers from noncarriers were 71.3% and 60.7%, respectively. The TC model showed good discrimination for predicting BRCA PGVs (area under the curve, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.81). Furthermore, use of the TC model with an optimized cutoff of TC score ≥0.16% in addition to the NCCN guidelines improved the predictive efficiency for high-risk groups (sensitivity, 77.2%; specificity, 54.8%; about 11 genes). Given the influence of ethnic differences on prediction, we consider that further studies are warranted to elucidate the role of environmental and genetic factors for realizing precise prediction.

A cross-sectional study of agreement between the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and patient- and radiation oncologist-reported single-item assessment of depression and anxiety.

OBJECTIVE: To describe among radiation oncology patients: (1) the proportion likely to be experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety as identified by (a) the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; standardised tool), (b) patient-reported single items (ultrashort tool), and (c) radiation oncologist-reported single items (clinician judgement); (2) preferences for being offered psychological support; and (3) agreement between single-item measures and the HADS. METHODS: Adult cancer patients (n = 152; consent rate 58%) receiving radiotherapy completed a touchscreen tablet survey assessing symptoms of anxiety and depression (HADS and a single-item tool) and support preferences. Each participant's treating radiation oncologist completed a survey assessing his or her perception of whether the patient was anxious or depressed. RESULTS: Prevalence estimates for likely depression (6.9-18%) and anxiety (17-33%) overlapped across the 3 measures. Overall, only 9.9% of patients (95% CI, 5.6%-16%) wanted to be offered psychological support. For depression, agreement between the HADS and ultrashort tool was fair (κ = 0.37, P < 0.0001); agreement between the HADS and clinician judgement was slight (κ = 0.14, P < 0.05). For anxiety, agreement between the HADS and clinician judgement was not significantly greater than chance alone (κ = 0.04, P = 0.33), and agreement between the HADS and ultrashort tool was moderate (κ = 0.49, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the important role that oncology consultations play in interpreting assessment tool results and responding to individual patient's history and preferences for psychological support.