Testing for Hereditary Breast Cancer: Panel or Targeted Testing? Experience from a Clinical Cancer Genetics Practice.

Approaches to hereditary breast cancer testing are shifting as multi-gene panels become more widely available. This paper describes our center's experience and outcomes of a 6-gene panel test as a first-tier approach in patients who were candidates for BRCA testing. Between July and December 2013, a 6-gene panel test was ordered for patients meeting criteria for BRCA testing. A retrospective review detailed the mutation and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) rates for the genes analyzed. The mutation rate was 5.2 % (n = 7) and the VUS rate was 6.7 % (n = 9). A subsequent review determined the number of BRCA-negative patients who would have been offered additional single gene testing had BRCA, only, been their first-tier test. Applying consensus criteria revealed 7.1 % (n = 9) cases that met criteria for additional testing. Pedigree analysis by a certified genetic counselor revealed 26.8 % (n = 34) cases that would have been offered additional testing based on personal and/or family history. Our results suggest that this panel may be warranted as a first-tier test for a small subset of patients, but likely represents over testing for the majority of patients who are candidates for BRCA testing. The genes selected for panels, the extra costs per patient and the chance of VUS must be considered before we uniformly switch from BRCA to full panel testing on all patients.

Erratum to: Changes in specialists' perspectives on cancer genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination: then and now.

Erratum to: J Genet Counsel DOI 10.1007/s10897-013-9625-z . In the "Funding" section, the company HRA was incorrectly referred to as HSR. The full name of the company is "HRA­ Healthcare Research & Analytics."

Changes in specialists' perspectives on cancer genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination: then and now.

We surveyed cancer genetics specialists in 1998 to learn what they would do if at 50% risk to carry a BRCA or Lynch syndrome mutation. We chose to repeat our study 14 years later, to examine how perspectives have changed with the extensive data now available. In July 2012 we surveyed the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Cancer Special Interest Group via an internet based survey. We found statistically significant increases in the percentage of specialists who: would undergo BRCA testing (p = 0.0006), opt for prophylactic bilateral mastectomy (p =0.0001), opt for prophylactic removal of their uterus and ovaries for Lynch syndrome (p =0.0057 and P = 0.0090, respectively), and bill testing to insurance (p >0.0001). There were also statistically significant decreases in the percentage of participants who would have their colon removed for Lynch syndrome (p = 0.0002) and use an alias when pursuing testing (p > 0.0001). Over the past 14 years there has been a major change in perspective amongst cancer genetic specialists regarding genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination.

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.

Adverse Events in Genetic Testing: The Fourth Case Series.

PURPOSE: In this ongoing national case series, we document 25 new genetic testing cases in which tests were recommended, ordered, interpreted, or used incorrectly. METHODS: An invitation to submit cases of adverse events 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, private genetic counselor laboratory groups, and via social media platforms (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). Examples highlighted in the invitation included errors in ordering, counseling, and/or interpretation of genetic testing and did not limit submissions to cases involving genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition. Clinical documentation, including pedigree, was requested. Twenty-six cases were accepted, and a thematic analysis was performed. Submitters were asked to approve the representation of their cases before manuscript submission. RESULTS: All submitted cases took place in the United States and were from cancer, pediatric, preconception, and general adult settings and involved both medical-grade and direct-to-consumer genetic testing with raw data analysis. In 8 cases, providers ordered the wrong genetic test. In 2 cases, multiple errors were made when genetic testing was ordered. In 3 cases, patients received incorrect information from providers because genetic test results were misinterpreted or because of limitations in the provider's knowledge of genetics. In 3 cases, pathogenic genetic variants identified were incorrectly assumed to completely explain the suspicious family histories of cancer. In 2 cases, patients received inadequate or no information with respect to genetic test results. In 2 cases, result interpretation/documentation by the testing laboratories was erroneous. In 2 cases, genetic counselors reinterpreted the results of people who had undergone direct-to-consumer genetic testing and/or clarifying medical-grade testing was ordered. DISCUSSION: As genetic testing continues to become more common and complex, it is clear that we must ensure that appropriate testing is ordered and that results are interpreted and used correctly. Access to certified genetic counselors continues to be an issue for some because of workforce limitations. Potential solutions involve action on multiple fronts: new genetic counseling delivery models, expanding the genetic counseling workforce, improving genetics and genomics education of nongenetics health care professionals, addressing health care policy barriers, and more. Genetic counselors have also positioned themselves in new roles to help patients and consumers as well as health care providers, systems, and payers adapt to new genetic testing technologies and models. The work to be done is significant, but so are the consequences of errors in genetic testing.

"Would you test your children without their consent?" and other sticky dilemmas in the field of cancer genetic testing.

Cancer genetic testing is surrounded by myriad ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications which are being revisited as testing expands into an everyday practice and into more complicated areas like whole exome and direct-to-consumer testing. We chose to survey cancer genetic counselors and physicians from a wide range of non-genetics specialties to determine what they would do if faced with the complex decisions associated with cancer genetic testing, how their views compare, and how they align with current guidelines and data. Genetic counselors were significantly more likely than non-genetics physicians to bill their insurance for testing (94.9 vs. 86.8 %; p = 0.001) and purchase life insurance before testing (86.6 vs. 68.6 %; p = 0.000) and were less likely to use an alias (3.2 vs. 13.2 %; p = 0.000) or order testing on their own DNA (15.3 vs. 24.2 %; p = 0.004). They were also less likely to test their minor children (0.9 vs. 33.1 %; p = 0.000) or test their children without their knowledge and consent/assent (1.4 vs.11.5 %; p = 0.000). The results of our study indicate that there is wide variation regarding what clinicians predict they would do in the areas of ethical, legal and psychosocial issues in cancer genetic testing. Cancer genetic counselors' choices are more aligned with professional guidelines, likely due to their experience in the field and awareness of current guidelines. These data are a starting point for a broader discussion of who should offer cancer genetic counseling and testing to patients, particularly as the complexity of the available testing options and associated issues increase with whole exome sequencing.

Adverse events in cancer genetic testing: the third case series.

After repeated media attention in 2013 due to the Angelina Jolie disclosure and the Supreme Court decision to ban gene patents, the demand for cancer genetic counseling and testing services has never been greater. Debate has arisen regarding who should provide such services and the quality of genetics services being offered. In this ongoing case series, we document 35 new cases from 7 states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Utah) and the District of Columbia of adverse outcomes in cancer genetic testing when performed without the involvement of a certified genetic counselor. We identified 3 major themes of errors: wrong genetic tests ordered, genetic test results misinterpreted, and inadequate genetic counseling. Patient morbidity and mortality were an issue in several of these cases. The complexity of cancer genetic testing and counseling has grown exponentially with the advent of multigene panels that include rare genes and the potential for more variants of uncertain significance. We conclude that genetic counseling and testing should be offered by certified genetics providers to minimize the risks, maximize the benefits, and utilize health care dollars most efficiently.