Determinants of Breast Cancer Screening Adherence During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Cohort at Increased Inherited Cancer Risk in the United States.

BACKGROUND: We examined neighborhood characteristics concerning breast cancer screening annual adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We analyzed 6673 female patients aged 40 or older at increased inherited cancer risk in 2 large health care systems (NYU Langone Health [NYULH] and the University of Utah Health [UHealth]). Multinomial models were used to identify predictors of mammogram screening groups (non-adherent, pre-pandemic adherent, pandemic period adherent) in comparison to adherent females. Potential determinants included sociodemographic characteristics and neighborhood factors. RESULTS: Comparing each cancer group in reference to the adherent group, a reduced likelihood of being non-adherent was associated with older age (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95, 0.99), a greater number of relatives with cancer (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.86), and being seen at NYULH study site (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.29, 0.60). More relatives with cancer were correlated with a lesser likelihood of being pandemic period adherent (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81, 0.97). A lower likelihood of being pre-pandemic adherent was seen in areas with less education (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.62, 0.96) and NYULH study site (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.55). Finally, greater neighborhood deprivation (OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.01) was associated with being non-adherent. CONCLUSION: Breast screening during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with being older, having more relatives with cancer, residing in areas with less educational attainment, and being seen at NYULH; non-adherence was linked with greater neighborhood deprivation. These findings may mitigate risk of clinically important screening delays at times of disruptions in a population at greater risk for breast cancer.

Breast Cancer Screening Adherence in the US During COVID-19: We examined predictors of breast cancer screening adherence during COVID-19 at two large healthcare systems. Adherence was associated with older age, having more relatives with a cancer history, and living in areas with less educational attainment. Nonadherence was associated with greater neighborhood deprivation.

Enhanced family history-based algorithms increase the identification of individuals meeting criteria for genetic testing of hereditary cancer syndromes but would not reduce disparities on their own.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to 1) investigate algorithm enhancements for identifying patients eligible for genetic testing of hereditary cancer syndromes using family history data from electronic health records (EHRs); and 2) assess their impact on relative differences across sex, race, ethnicity, and language preference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study used EHR data from a tertiary academic medical center. A baseline rule-base algorithm, relying on structured family history data (structured data; SD), was enhanced using a natural language processing (NLP) component and a relaxed criteria algorithm (partial match [PM]). The identification rates and differences were analyzed considering sex, race, ethnicity, and language preference. RESULTS: Among 120,007 patients aged 25-60, detection rate differences were found across all groups using the SD (all P < 0.001). Both enhancements increased identification rates; NLP led to a 1.9 % increase and the relaxed criteria algorithm (PM) led to an 18.5 % increase (both P < 0.001). Combining SD with NLP and PM yielded a 20.4 % increase (P < 0.001). Similar increases were observed within subgroups. Relative differences persisted across most categories for the enhanced algorithms, with disproportionately higher identification of patients who are White, Female, non-Hispanic, and whose preferred language is English. CONCLUSION: Algorithm enhancements increased identification rates for patients eligible for genetic testing of hereditary cancer syndromes, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, and language preference. However, differences in identification rates persisted, emphasizing the need for additional strategies to reduce disparities such as addressing underlying biases in EHR family health information and selectively applying algorithm enhancements for disadvantaged populations. Systematic assessment of differences in algorithm performance across population subgroups should be incorporated into algorithm development processes.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, including BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53, and recommended approaches to genetic counseling/testing and care strategies in individuals with these P/LP variants. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize important updates regarding: (1) a new section for transgender, nonbinary and gender diverse people who have a hereditary predisposition to cancer focused on risk reduction strategies for ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer; and (2) testing criteria and management associated with TP53 P/LP variants and Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

Experiences of patients and family members with follow-up care, information needs and provider support after identification of Lynch Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Lynch Syndrome is among the most common hereditary cancer syndromes and requires ongoing cancer surveillance, repeated screenings and potential risk-reducing surgeries. Despite the importance of continued surveillance, there is limited understanding of patient experiences after initial testing and counseling, the barriers or facilitators they experience adhering to recommendations, and how they want to receive information over time. METHODS: A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted among 127 probands and family members who had received genetic testing for Lynch Syndrome. We conducted semi-structured interviews to determine proband and family member experiences after receiving genetic testing results including their surveillance and screening practices, information needs, and interactions with health care providers. Both closed-ended and open-ended data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Both probands (96.9%) and family members (76.8%) received recommendations for follow-up screening and all probands (100%) and most family members (98.2%) who tested positive had completed at least one screening. Facilitators to screening included receiving screening procedure reminders and the ease of making screening and surveillance appointments. Insurance coverage to pay for screenings was a frequent concern especially for those under 50 years of age. Participants commented that their primary care providers were often not knowledgeable about Lynch Syndrome and surveillance recommendations; this presented a hardship in navigating ongoing surveillance and updated information. Participants preferred information from a knowledgeable health care provider or a trusted internet source over social media or support groups. CONCLUSIONS: Probands and family members receiving genetic testing for Lynch Syndrome generally adhered to initial screening and surveillance recommendations. However, factors such as insurance coverage and difficulty finding a knowledgeable healthcare provider presented barriers to receiving recommended follow-up care. There is an opportunity to improve care through better transitions in care, procedures to keep primary care providers informed of surveillance guidelines, and practices so that patients receive reminders and facilitated appointment setting for ongoing screening and surveillance at the time they are due.

Increasing Skin Cancer Prevention in Young Adults: the Cumulative Impact of Personalized UV Photography and MC1R Genetic Testing.

Skin cancer has become increasingly common among young adults; however, this population does not consistently adhere to recommended methods for preventing the disease. Interventions in college settings have relied on appearance-focused appeals and have not been able to examine the cumulative effect of multiple behavior change and skin cancer risk communication strategies. The goal of the current study was to examine the unique and combined impacts of personalized ultraviolet (UV) radiation photographs, genetic testing for skin cancer risk, and general skin cancer prevention education. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) skin cancer prevention education, (2) education + UV photo, (3) education + genetic testing, and (4) education + UV photo + genetic testing. Self-reported sun protection, tanning, and sunburn were assessed at baseline, immediately post-intervention, and 1 month post-intervention. The findings indicated benefits of the interventions to skin cancer prevention behaviors in the overall sample; however, the combined (UV photo + genetic testing) intervention had the most consistent positive effects on behaviors. Intervention effects were distinct across seasons. These results suggest that interventions containing multiple skin cancer risk communication strategies hold promise in benefitting health-promoting behavior changes in an at-risk, young adult population.Trial Registration Number: NCT03979872; Registered 6/5/2019.

Cancer Risk in Patients With and Relatives of Serrated Polyposis Syndrome and Sporadic Sessile Serrated Lesions.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) and their first-degree relatives (FDRs) have increased colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Patients with sporadic sessile serrated lesion (SSL) have risk for progression to CRC. Yet familial risks of common extracolonic cancers and even CRC in these cohorts are poorly understood. Our aim was to examine cancer risk for patients with SPS and sporadic SSL and their close and more distant relatives using a large population database. METHODS: Patients with SPS (n = 59) from hereditary patient registries were eligible for study. Sporadic SSL (n = 754) and sex- and age-matched normal colonoscopy controls (n = 1,624) were selected from clinical data linked to the Utah Population Database. Cox models adjusting for the number of relatives, degree of relatedness, and person-years at risk were used to estimate CRC, extracolonic, and any-site adenocarcinoma/carcinoma cancer risk in patients and their relatives. RESULTS: Compared with controls, CRC risk was elevated 10-fold in patients with SPS (P = 0.04) and 5-fold in their FDRs (P = 0.001). Any-site adenoma/carcinoma risk was increased 2.6-fold in FDRs of patients with SPS. No elevated risks of other common extracolonic cancers were observed in SPS and family members. The FDRs, second-degree relatives, and third-degree relatives of patients with both SSL and adenomatous polyps exhibited a 50% increased CRC risk. DISCUSSION: Patients with SPS and their FDRs have an increased CRC risk, confirming other reports. Interestingly, patients with SSL were noted to have an increased risk of prostate cancer. Relatives of individuals with both sporadic SSL and adenomas, irrespective of size or dysplasia on examination, may have an elevated CRC risk, suggesting closer colonoscopy surveillance in this population.

Interactive Beliefs about Genes and Behavior Predict Improved Sun Protection Following Melanoma Genetic Counseling.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how members of cancer-prone families think about genetic determinism and whether personal behavior can amplify or counter genetic risk for disease. PURPOSE: Understanding how people think about the impact of personal behavior on disease risk may inform communications about genetic risks and their management. METHODS: We assessed three sets of beliefs about the impact of behavior on genetic risk-interactive (unhealthful behaviors can amplify genetic risk), subtractive (healthful behaviors can reduce genetic risk), and deterministic (genes primarily determine health outcomes)-among 114 unaffected members of melanoma-prone families receiving genetic counseling (51.6% men, average age = 35.3). We examined whether these beliefs predicted changes in perceived control, motivation to manage melanoma risk, and sun-protection behavior one year later. RESULTS: Participants strongly endorsed interactive and subtractive beliefs, but not deterministic beliefs. These beliefs generally did not change, even among those who received positive CDKN2A/p16 genetic test results conferring up to 76% lifetime melanoma risk. Controlling for age, sex, education, skin type, and genetic test result, interactive beliefs predicted sustained increases in perceptions of personal control, motivation to reduce sun exposure, use of multiple sun-protection methods, and reduction in objectively assessed tanning at the wrist one year following genetic counseling. Subtractive beliefs predicted increased personal control, motivation to manage risk, and sunscreen use, while deterministic beliefs were generally unrelated to outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among people at highly elevated hereditary cancer risk, beliefs that unhealthful behaviors can amplify genetic risk seem to be especially motivating of behavioral risk-reduction efforts.

'I had a bigger cancer risk than I thought ': The experience of receiving personalized risk information as part of a skin cancer prevention intervention in the college setting.

BACKGROUND: Diagnoses of both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers are becoming increasingly common among young adults. Interventions in this population are a priority because they do not consistently follow skin cancer prevention recommendations. OBJECTIVES: The goal of the current study was to examine college students' perspectives on and experience with receiving a skin cancer prevention intervention that provided personalized skin cancer risk feedback in the form of an ultraviolet (UV) photograph, the results of genetic testing for common skin cancer risk variants, and/or general skin cancer prevention education. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 38 college students who received a skin cancer prevention intervention. The interview covered students' feelings about their personal skin cancer risk information, the impact of the intervention on their skin cancer risk perceptions, actions or intentions to act with regard to their sun protection practices and feedback for improvement of the intervention content or delivery. RESULTS: Participants reported that different intervention components contributed to increased awareness of their sun protection behaviours, shifts in cognitions about and motivation to implement sun protection strategies and reported changes to their skin cancer prevention strategies. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that college students are interested in and responsive to these types of multicomponent skin cancer preventive interventions. Further, students demonstrate some motivation and intentionality toward changing their skin cancer risk behaviour in the short term. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Participants involved in this study were members of the public (undergraduate students) who were involved in a skin cancer prevention intervention, then participated in semistructured interviews, which provided the data analysed for this study.

Uptake of genetic counseling and multi-gene panel testing among women in the Intermountain West with previous negative BRCA1 and BRCA2 results contacted for updated testing.

Women with a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer who previously had BRCA1/2 testing now have the opportunity for additional genetic risk information through multi-gene panel testing. However, little is known about women's receptivity to further contact and uptake of genetic counseling and updated genetic testing. Utilizing a clinic database to identify potential participants, we prospectively contacted women in the United States with a personal and/or family history of breast or ovarian cancer who had negative BRCA1/2 testing, which was performed primarily between 2011 and 2018. Eligible and interested participants were scheduled for a genetic counseling appointment to discuss updated genetic testing using a multi-gene panel. We attempted to contact 455 participants, screened 203 (45%), and 103 (23%) completed a pre-test genetic counseling visit to discuss updated testing. Of these, 88 participants had updated multi-gene panel testing. Participants had an average age of 59 years, and most (78%) had breast cancer with an average age of 45 at diagnosis. The majority (97%) of participants were white. Of participants who underwent panel testing, 13% (n = 11) had at least one pathogenic variant identified. Most participants (86%) had an out-of-pocket cost of $100 or less for their panel. There is a sizable population of women with a personal and/or family history of breast or ovarian cancer and negative BRCA1/2 test results who would qualify for updated multi-gene panel testing. In our study, 59% of those reached who were eligible completed a pre-test genetic counseling visit. Clinics could consider an outreach program to offer genetic counseling and updated genetic testing. Supports for this type of effort may include coordinators and genetic counseling assistants and an available database with patients' contact information and prior genetic test results. Updated testing allows women more information about their risk and may expand the value of genetic counseling.

Paraganglioma and other tumour detection rates in individuals with SDHx pathogenic variants by age of diagnosis and after the age of 50.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with SDHx germline mutations (SDHA, AF2, B, C, D) are at risk for paragangliomas (PGLs), renal cell carcinoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumours. The aim of this study was to evaluate the age of SDHx tumour diagnosis in those with pathogenic variants (PVs), notably tumour detection after the age of 50 years. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal retrospective observational analysis. PATIENTS: Individuals with SDHx PVs. MEASUREMENTS: Demographic, clinical, genetic, screening and tumour detection and treatment data were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Descriptive analysis was utilised. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients with SDHx PVs from 34 families were evaluated. Sixty-eight patients (41.2%) had at least one known SDHx-related tumour in their history, identified through symptoms, screening or incidentally. The average age of SDHx-related tumour diagnosis was 32.0 years. Age of diagnosis varied by the gene. Nine patients (n = 50; 18.0%) were identified with a tumour after the age of 50, identified via baseline screening after PV identification, or due to symptoms before molecular SDHx diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Though tumours were identified in individuals above the age of 50; they were all identified on baseline screening or due to symptoms, confirming that baseline screening is essential. Given the slow-growing nature of PGLs, these tumours might have been discovered before age 50 if molecular diagnosis and baseline screening had occurred earlier. Considering discontinuing screening after age 50 may be warranted if baseline screen imaging is negative and the individual does not have a prior tumour history.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer and recommended approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This manuscript focuses on cancer risk and risk management for BRCA-related breast/ovarian cancer syndrome and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Carriers of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant have an excessive risk for both breast and ovarian cancer that warrants consideration of more intensive screening and preventive strategies. There is also evidence that risks of prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer are elevated in these carriers. Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a highly penetrant cancer syndrome associated with a high lifetime risk for cancer, including soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, premenopausal breast cancer, colon cancer, gastric cancer, adrenocortical carcinoma, and brain tumors.

Priority of Risk (But Not Perceived Magnitude of Risk) Predicts Improved Sun-Protection Behavior Following Genetic Counseling for Familial Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Understanding multiple components of risk perceptions is important because perceived risk predicts engagement in prevention behaviors. PURPOSE: To examine how multiple components of risk perceptions (perceived magnitude of and worry about risk, prioritization of the management of one's risk) changed following genetic counseling with or without test reporting, and to examine which of these components prospectively predicted improvements in sun-protection behavior 1 year later. METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized study design was used. Participants were 114 unaffected members of melanoma-prone families who (i) underwent genetic testing for a CDKN2A/p16 mutation (n = 69) or (ii) were at comparably elevated risk based on family history and underwent genetic counseling but not testing (no-test controls, n = 45). Participants reported risk perception components and sun-protection behavior at baseline, immediately following counseling, and 1 month and 1 year after counseling. RESULTS: Factor analysis indicated three risk components. Carriers reported increased perceived magnitude and priority of risk, but not cancer worry. No-test controls showed no changes in any risk perception. Among noncarriers, priority of risk remained high at all assessments, whereas magnitude of risk and cancer worry decreased. Of the three risk components, greater priority of risk uniquely predicted improved self-reported sun protection 1 year post-counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Priority of risk (i) seems to be a component of risk perceptions distinguishable from magnitude of risk and cancer worry, (ii) may be an important predictor of daily prevention behavior, and (iii) remained elevated 1 year following genetic counseling only for participants who received a positive melanoma genetic test result.

Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Advances in genetics and sequencing technologies are enabling the identification of more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility who could benefit from tailored screening and prevention recommendations. While cancer family history information is used in primary care settings to identify unaffected patients who could benefit from a cancer genetics evaluation, this information is underutilized. System-level population health management strategies are needed to assist health care systems in identifying patients who may benefit from genetic services. In addition, because of the limited number of trained genetics specialists and increasing patient volume, the development of innovative and sustainable approaches to delivering cancer genetic services is essential. METHODS: We are conducting a randomized controlled trial, entitled Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services (BRIDGE), to address these needs. The trial is comparing uptake of genetic counseling, uptake of genetic testing, and patient adherence to management recommendations for automated, patient-directed versus enhanced standard of care cancer genetics services delivery models. An algorithm-based system that utilizes structured cancer family history data available in the electronic health record (EHR) is used to identify unaffected patients who receive primary care at the study sites and meet current guidelines for cancer genetic testing. We are enrolling eligible patients at two healthcare systems (University of Utah Health and New York University Langone Health) through outreach to a randomly selected sample of 2780 eligible patients in the two sites, with 1:1 randomization to the genetic services delivery arms within sites. Study outcomes are assessed through genetics clinic records, EHR, and two follow-up questionnaires at 4 weeks and 12 months after last genetic counseling contactpre-test genetic counseling. DISCUSSION: BRIDGE is being conducted in two healthcare systems with different clinical structures and patient populations. Innovative aspects of the trial include a randomized comparison of a chatbot-based genetic services delivery model to standard of care, as well as identification of at-risk individuals through a sustainable EHR-based system. The findings from the BRIDGE trial will advance the state of the science in identification of unaffected patients with inherited cancer susceptibility and delivery of genetic services to those patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: BRIDGE is registered as NCT03985852 . The trial was registered on June 6, 2019 at clinicaltrials.gov .

Patient Interactions With an Automated Conversational Agent Delivering Pretest Genetics Education: Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer genetic testing to assess an individual's cancer risk and to enable genomics-informed cancer treatment has grown exponentially in the past decade. Because of this continued growth and a shortage of health care workers, there is a need for automated strategies that provide high-quality genetics services to patients to reduce the clinical demand for genetics providers. Conversational agents have shown promise in managing mental health, pain, and other chronic conditions and are increasingly being used in cancer genetic services. However, research on how patients interact with these agents to satisfy their information needs is limited. OBJECTIVE: Our primary aim is to assess user interactions with a conversational agent for pretest genetics education. METHODS: We conducted a feasibility study of user interactions with a conversational agent who delivers pretest genetics education to primary care patients without cancer who are eligible for cancer genetic evaluation. The conversational agent provided scripted content similar to that delivered in a pretest genetic counseling visit for cancer genetic testing. Outside of a core set of information delivered to all patients, users were able to navigate within the chat to request additional content in their areas of interest. An artificial intelligence-based preprogrammed library was also established to allow users to ask open-ended questions to the conversational agent. Transcripts of the interactions were recorded. Here, we describe the information selected, time spent to complete the chat, and use of the open-ended question feature. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative measures, and thematic analyses were used for qualitative responses. RESULTS: We invited 103 patients to participate, of which 88.3% (91/103) were offered access to the conversational agent, 39% (36/91) started the chat, and 32% (30/91) completed the chat. Most users who completed the chat indicated that they wanted to continue with genetic testing (21/30, 70%), few were unsure (9/30, 30%), and no patient declined to move forward with testing. Those who decided to test spent an average of 10 (SD 2.57) minutes on the chat, selected an average of 1.87 (SD 1.2) additional pieces of information, and generally did not ask open-ended questions. Those who were unsure spent 4 more minutes on average (mean 14.1, SD 7.41; P=.03) on the chat, selected an average of 3.67 (SD 2.9) additional pieces of information, and asked at least one open-ended question. CONCLUSIONS: The pretest chat provided enough information for most patients to decide on cancer genetic testing, as indicated by the small number of open-ended questions. A subset of participants were still unsure about receiving genetic testing and may require additional education or interpersonal support before making a testing decision. Conversational agents have the potential to become a scalable alternative for pretest genetics education, reducing the clinical demand on genetics providers.

CDKN2A testing and genetic counseling promote reductions in objectively measured sun exposure one year later.

PURPOSE: This study investigated whether genetic counseling and test reporting for the highly penetrant CDKN2A melanoma predisposition gene promoted decreases in sun exposure. METHODS: A prospective, nonequivalent control group design compared unaffected participants (N = 128, Mage = 35.24, 52% men) from (1) families known to carry a CDKN2A pathogenic variant, who received counseling about management recommendations and a positive or negative genetic test result and (2) no-test control families known not to carry a CDKN2A pathogenic variant, who received equivalent counseling based on their comparable family history. Changes in daily ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure (J/m2), skin pigmentation (melanin index), and sunburns between baseline and one year following counseling were compared among carriers (n = 32), noncarriers (n = 46), and no-test control participants (n = 50). RESULTS: Both carriers and no-test control participants exhibited a decrease one year later in daily UVR dose (B = -0.52, -0.33, p < 0.01). Only carriers exhibited a significant decrease in skin pigmentation at the wrist one year later (B = -0.11, p < 0.001), and both carriers and no-test control participants reported fewer sunburns than noncarriers (p < 0.05). Facial pigmentation did not change for any group. Noncarriers did not change on any measure of UVR exposure. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the clinical utility of disclosing CDKN2A test results and providing risk management education to high-risk individuals.

Tumor detection rates in screening of individuals with SDHx-related hereditary paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma syndrome.

PURPOSE: Minimal data exist regarding the efficacy of screening protocols for individuals with SDHx germline pathogenic variants with hereditary paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma syndrome. This study aimed to evaluate the SDHx-related tumor detection rate in individuals undergoing clinical screening protocols. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective longitudinal observational study was conducted. Individuals with germline SDHx pathogenic variants underwent clinical whole-body imaging and biochemical testing. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-three individuals with SDHx germline pathogenic variants completed 491 imaging screens. Individuals with SDHB germline pathogenic variants were most common (n = 188/263, 72%), followed by SDHD (n = 35/263, 13%) and SDHC (n = 28/263, 11%). SDHx-related tumors were found in 17% (n = 45/263) of the cohort. Most SDHx-related tumors were identified on baseline imaging screen (n = 39/46, 85%). Individuals with SDHD pathogenic variants had the highest tumor detection rate (n = 14/35, 40%). Of imaging screens identifying SDHx-related paraganglioma/pheochromocytoma, 29% (n = 12/41) had negative biochemical testing. Secondary actionable findings were identified in 15% (n = 75/491) of imaging screens. CONCLUSION: Current SDHx screening protocols are effective at identifying SDHx-related tumors. Tumor detection rates vary by SDHx gene and screening has the potential to uncover actionable secondary findings. Imaging is an essential part of the screening process as biochemical testing alone does not detect all disease.

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.

A pilot study of a telehealth family-focused melanoma preventive intervention for children with a family history of melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: Melanoma preventive interventions for children with familial risk are critically needed because ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure and sunburn occurrence early in life are the primary modifiable risk factors for melanoma. The current study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a new, family-focused telehealth intervention for children with familial risk for melanoma and their parents. The study also explored changes in child sun protection and risk behaviors, sunburn occurrence, and objectively measured UVR exposure. METHODS: This was a prospective study with a single-group design (n = 21 parent-child dyads, children ages 8-17). Dyads were asked to participate in three in-person assessments and three live video teleconference intervention sessions. RESULTS: The intervention was feasibly delivered, and the intervention content was acceptable to parents and children. The intervention was associated with improvements in child use of certain sun protection strategies over time and declines in child UVR exposure. CONCLUSIONS: A telehealth-delivered,family-focused melanoma preventive intervention was feasibly delivered and was acceptable to parent-child dyads. Future melanoma preventive interventions for this at-risk population could incorporate eHealth technologies to facilitate improvements in use of sun protection and monitoring of UVR exposure. This trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT02846714.

Population-based relative risks for specific family history constellations of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Using a large resource linking genealogy with decades of cancer data, a non-traditional approach was used to estimate individualized risk for breast cancer (BC) based on specific family history extending to first cousins, providing a clearer picture of the contribution of various aspects of both close and distant combinations of affected relatives. METHODS: RRs for BC were estimated in 640,366 females for a representative set of breast cancer family history constellations that included number of first- (FDR), second-(SDR), and third-degree relatives (TDR), maternal and paternal relatives, and age at earliest diagnosis in a relative. RESULTS: RRs for first-degree relatives of BC cases ranged from 1.61 (= 1 FDR affected, CI 1.56, 1.67) to 5.00 (≥ 4 FDRs affected, CI 3.35, 7.18). RRs for second-degree relatives of probands with 0 affected FDRs ranged from 1.04 (= 1 SDR affected, CI 1.00, 1.08) to 1.71 (≥ 4 SDRs affected, CI 1.26, 2.27) and for second-degree relatives of probands with exactly 1 FDR from 1.54 (0 SDRs affected, CI 1.47, 1.61) to 4.78 (≥ 5 SDRs; CI 2.47, 8.35). RRs for third-degree relatives with no closer relatives affected were significantly elevated over population risk for probands with ≥ 5 affected TDRs RR = 1.32, CI 1.11, 1.57). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of females in the Utah resource had a positive family history of BC in FDRs to TDRs. Presence of any number of affected FDRs or SDRs significantly increased risk for BC over population risk; and more than four TDRs, even with no affected FDRs or SDRs, significantly increased risk over population risk. Risk prediction derived from the specific and extended family history constellation of affected relatives allows identification of females at increased risk even when they do not have a conventionally defined high-risk family; these risks could be a powerful, efficient tool to individualize cancer screening and prevention.

The contribution of the rs55705857 G allele to familial cancer risk as estimated in the Utah population database.

BACKGROUND: IDH1/2 mutated glioma has been associated with a germline risk variant, the rs55705857 G allele. The Utah Population Database (UPDB), a computerized genealogy of people in Utah, is a unique resource to evaluate cancer risk in related individuals. METHODS: One hundred and two individuals with IDH1/2 mutant or 1p/19q co-deleted glioma were genotyped and linked to the UPDB. DNA came from blood (21), tumor tissue (43), or both (38). We determined congruence between somatic and germline samples and estimated the relative risk for developing cancer to first and second-degree relatives of G and A allele carriers at rs55705857. RESULTS: Somatic (glioma) DNA had 85.7% sensitivity (CI 57.2-98.2%) and 95.8% specificity (CI 78.9-99.89%) for germline rs55705857 G allele. Forty-one patients were linked to pedigrees in the UPDB with at least three generations of data. First-degree relatives of rs55705857 G allele carriers were at significantly increased risk for developing cancer (RR = 1.72, p = 0.045, CI 1.02-2.94), and specifically for oligodendroglioma (RR = 57.61, p = 0.017, CI 2.96-320.98) or prostate cancer (RR = 4.10, p = 0.008, CI 1.62-9.58); relatives of individuals without the G allele were not at increased risk. Second-degree relatives of G allele carriers also had significantly increased risk for developing cancer (RR = 1.50, p = 0.007, CI 1.15-2.01). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor DNA may approximate genotype at the rs55705857 locus. We confirmed this locus confers an increased risk of all cancers and especially of oligodendroglioma. No increased cancer or brain tumor risk is seen in family members of individuals without the high-risk G allele.