Young Women's Perspectives on Being Screened for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk During Routine Primary Care.

PURPOSE: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening women to identify individuals eligible for genetic counseling based on a priori hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) risk (i.e., risk assessment). However, risk assessment has not been widely integrated into primary care. This qualitative study explored young women's views on implementing routine HBOC risk assessment with a focus on equity and patient-centeredness. METHODS: We conducted group discussions with young women (aged 21-40 years) receiving care in an integrated health care system. Discussion groups occurred in two phases and used a modified deliberative approach that included a didactic component and prioritized developing consensus. Twenty women participated in one of three initial small group discussions (phase one). All 20 were invited to participate in a subsequent large group discussion (phase two), and 15 of them attended. FINDINGS: Key themes and recommendations were as follows. Risk assessment should be accessible, contextualized, and destigmatized to encourage participation and reduce anxiety, particularly for women who do not know their family history. Providers conducting risk assessments must be equipped to address women's informational needs, relieve emotionality, and plan next steps after positive screens. Finally, to minimize differential screening uptake, health care systems must prioritize equity in program design and contribute to external educational and outreach efforts. CONCLUSION: Young women see pragmatic opportunities for health systems to optimize HBOC screening implementation.

Building Efficiency and Scaling With a Remote Genetic Counseling Program.

Purpose A third-party telemedicine (TM) genetic counseling program was initiated at a large community oncology practice spanning 35 clinical sites with 110 clinicians and 97 advanced practice providers throughout Tennessee and Georgia. Patients and Methods Appropriate patients were referred through the electronic health record (EHR) based on current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. A combination of TM and genetic counseling assistants enhanced convenience, broadened access, and decreased no-show rates. Physician education for mutation-positive screening recommendations was provided through deep integration of dedicated genetic counseling notes in the EHR. Results From 2019 to 2022, the program expanded from 1 to 20 clinics with referrals growing from 195 to 885. An average of 82% of patients completed genetic counseling consultations over TM with more than 70% completing genetic testing. The average was 4 to 6 days from referral to consultation. The no-show rate was maintained at less than 7%. In 2023, this model supported all 35 clinics across the state. Conclusion Our program illustrates how remote genetic counseling programs are an effective choice for scaling genetics care across a large community oncology practice. Deep integration of TM genetic counseling within the EHR helps identify patients who are high risk and improves test adoption, patient keep rate, and turnaround time, helping to achieve better patient outcomes.

Integration of Genetic Testing and Counseling in Patients With Breast Cancer in a Large, Multisite Community-Based Practice.

PURPOSE: Despite data-driven consensus recommendations, there remains significant nonadherence to genetic screening and testing. More than 300,000 patients are diagnosed with breast cancer annually, with one third of these estimated to be eligible for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)/BRCA testing following National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Only 35% of eligible patients are referred for genetic counseling. METHODS: The goal of this project was to apply NCCN guidelines for germline genetic testing to all new patients with breast cancer within a large community oncology practice to improve HRD/BRCA testing. Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology was used, and cycles were built on a proven teaching infrastructure. In cycle 1, providers were educated and directed to use electronic health record (EHR) templates in the setting of an initial diagnosis visit and treatment planning. Discreet data fields were created in the EHR during cycle 2 to streamline and automate the process. Appropriate patients were referred to the genetics team for further evaluation, counseling, and testing. Adherence to the plan was maintained and measured using data analytic reports and chart audits. RESULTS: Of the 1,203 patients with breast cancer eligible for inclusion, 1,200 (99%) were screened according to NCCN guidelines. Of the screened patients, 631 (52.5%) met the referral/testing criteria. In total, 585 (92.7%) of the 631 were referred to a genetic specialist. Seven percent had previous referrals. A total of 449 (71%) patients were acceptable to genetics referral while 136 (21.5%) patients refused. CONCLUSION: The implemented methods of education, NCCN guidelines imbedded within provider notes, and discreet data fields in the EHR have proven to be highly effective in screening appropriate patients and ordering subsequent genetic referrals.

Perioperative genetic testing and time to surgery in patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Time to treatment has been identified as a quality metric, with longer time to treatment associated with poorer outcomes. Genetic evaluation is an integral part of treatment counseling for patients with breast cancer. With expanding indications for genetic testing and consideration of expansion of genetic testing to all patients with a personal history of breast cancer, this study aims to evaluate the effect of genetic evaluation on the time interval from initial surgical visit to surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing upfront surgery for stage 0-3 breast cancer from June 2022 to December 2022. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for genetic testing, and results were obtained. RESULTS: The study included 492 patients (489 females). Eighty-one (16.2%) were ≤50 years of age at diagnosis. In total, 281 patients (57.1%) met National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for genetic testing and 199 consulted with a genetic counselor (72.4%). Seventy-six patients (27.6%) not meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria pursued genetic counseling. In total, 218 patients (79.3%) referred for genetic counseling completed testing. Mean turnaround time to genetic testing result was 11 days (range, 6-66 days). Twenty-six patients (11.9%) had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Twenty-four of these patients met National Comprehensive Cancer Network testing criteria (92.3%) and 2 did not (7.7%). The time to treatment for patients undergoing genetic testing was 33 vs 34 days in those without testing (P = .45). Three patients (11.5%) with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants altered their initial surgical plan due to their genetic testing results. Seven patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant results returning postoperatively did not undergo additional surgery. CONCLUSION: Hereditary breast cancer evaluation and genetic testing did not appear to delay time to treatment for patients with breast cancer in our study cohort.

Genetic testing and counseling challenges in personalized breast cancer care: review article with insights from Türkiye.

According to current evidence, testing for germline BRCA pathogenic variants in newly diagnosed breast cancer (BC) patients has the potential to reduce the burden of the disease through targeted therapies and secondary prevention. A personalized approach to testing can lead to improved individual outcomes for patients. Despite the proven clinical utility and therapeutic impact of BRCA1/2 tests in shaping therapy for metastatic BC, awareness and access to these tests are limited in many developing countries, including Türkiye. This limitation impacts the healthcare economy as delayed or missed interventions can lead to increased long-term costs. The limited access is mainly due to fear of stigmatization among patients, country-specific legislation and costs, a lack of awareness, vagueness surrounding the tests and access restrictions. This review offers a perspective for policymakers and healthcare providers in Türkiye to establish pathways that integrate the patient experience into comprehensive care pathways and national cancer control plans.

Recent studies show that testing for a specific gene change in people newly diagnosed with breast cancer can help reduce the impact the disease has on their life as they can be given special treatments. When tests are tailored to each person, they can get better results. However, in many countries, including Türkiye, not many people know about or can get these tests. This is because of concerns about being judged, rules in the country, the cost, confusion about the tests and limited access. Not having these tests can make healthcare more expensive in the long run. This article suggests ways for Türkiye's leaders and health workers to make these tests a regular part of cancer care and planning.

Experiences of Family Communication and Cascade Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer in Medically Underserved Populations-A Qualitative Study.

We sought to explore the intrafamilial communication and cascade genetic testing (CGT) experiences of patients with hereditary cancer from diverse, medically underserved populations and their relatives. Participants included patients receiving oncology care at an urban, safety net hospital in Texas or comprehensive cancer center in Alabama and their first-degree relatives. In-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews were completed wherein patients shared their experiences with genetic counseling (GC), genetic testing (GT), and communicating their results to relatives. Relatives shared their experiences receiving information from the patient and considering CGT. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and themes were identified. Of 25 participating patients, most recalled key aspects of GC and their GT results. Most (80%) patients shared their results with relatives, but only some relatives underwent CGT; patients reported low perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer as a common barrier to CGT for their relatives. Of 16 participating relatives, most reported feeling distress upon learning the patient's GT results. Relatives were fearful of learning their own CGT results but identified prevention and early detection as CGT benefits. Interviews identified opportunities during family communication to improve relatives' perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer. Tailored resources may support patients and relatives experiencing distress and fear during GT. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study of intrafamilial communication and cascade genetic testing experiences of patients with hereditary cancer and their relatives from diverse, medically underserved populations identified relatives' perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer risks, distress, and fear as frequent reactions and barriers to testing. These results may inform future hereditary cancer prevention efforts.

Genetic counseling and testing for females at elevated risk for breast cancer: Protocol for the randomized controlled trial of the Know Your Risk intervention.

BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling and testing have an important role in the care of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer. However, conventional pre- and post-test genetic counseling is labor and time intensive, less accessible for patients living outside major urban centers, and impractical on a large scale. A patient-driven approach to genetic counseling and testing may increase access, improve patients' experiences, affect efficiency of clinical practice, and help meet workforce demand. The objective of this 2-arm randomized controlled trial is to determine the efficacy of Know Your Risk (KYR), a genetic counseling patient preference intervention. METHODS: Females (n = 1000) at elevated risk (>20% lifetime) for breast cancer will be randomized to the KYR intervention or conventional genetic counseling. The study will provide comprehensive assessment of breast cancer risk by multigene panel testing and validated polygenic risk score. Primary outcome is adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for a clinical encounter every 6-12 months and an annual mammogram (breast MRI if recommended) determined by medical record review. Secondary outcomes include adherence to other recommended cancer screening tests determined by medical record review and changes in breast cancer knowledge, perception of risk, post-test/counseling distress, and satisfaction with counseling by completion of three surveys during the study. Study aims will be evaluated for non-inferiority of the KYR intervention compared to conventional genetic counseling. CONCLUSION: If efficacious, the KYR intervention has the potential to improve patients' experience and may change how genetic counseling is delivered, inform best practices, and reduce workforce burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT05325151.

Breast/ovarian cancer genetic counseling: Do anxiety, depression, and health care-related fears influence cancer worry and risk perception?

BACKGROUND: The impact of family and personal cancer history and emotional factors, such as depression and anxiety, on disease representation has received limited attention in studies investigating the development of cancer-related worry and risk perception within the context of genetic counseling. The current study endeavors to fill this gap by exploring the extent to which depression and anxiety influence cancer worry and risk perception, and the role of health care-related fear as potential mediator in this relationship. METHODS: A sample of 178 women who underwent their first genetic counseling for breast/ovarian cancer, 52% of whom had previous cancer diagnoses, completed questionnaires assessing sociodemographic and clinical information, emotional distress in terms of anxiety and depression, cancer-related worry, risk perception, and health care-related fears. RESULTS: Results of mediation analyses showed that cancer-related worry and risk perception increased with rising levels of depression and anxiety, with health care-related fears acting as a mediator in the relationship of depression and anxiety with cancer worry and risk perception. Covariate analysis revealed that previous cancer diagnosis increases cancer-related worry but not risk perception, while the number of family members affected by cancer increases both outcomes. CONCLUSION: These findings emphasize the need for a holistic approach in genetic counseling and have implications for the clinical practice.

Genetic Counseling and Prenatal Diagnosis of a Maternally Inherited 15q11.2 Microduplication.

Unbalanced chromosome abnormalities (UBCA) are large genomic region variations that often result in minimal clinical effects. Copy number variants (CNVs), such as microdeletions and microduplications in 15q11.2, have been linked to various health issues, making prenatal diagnosis and genetic counselling challenging. Microdeletions and microduplications in the genomic region 15q11.2 are associated with congenital heart defects, autism, schizophrenia, epilepsy, mental retardation and developmental delay. The literature on this microduplication is confusing and extensive, which is a great difficulty for prenatal diagnosis and genetic counselling. A 35-year-old female undergoing amniocentesis at Week 19 due to advanced maternal age revealed a normal 46,XX karyotype through G-banding analysis. However, Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) on the same amniocytes detected a 550-Kb maternally inherited chromosomal microduplication in 15q11.2. An integrated approach combining karyotype analysis, CMA, genetic counseling, and prenatal ultrasound is crucial for the accurate prenatal diagnosis of UBCAs and CNVs.

Challenging interpretation of germline TP53 variants based on the experience of a national comprehensive cancer centre.

TP53 variant interpretation is still challenging, especially in patients with attenuated Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). We investigated the prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants and LFS disease in the Hungarian population of cancer patients. By testing 893 patients with multiplex or familial cancer, we identified and functionally characterized novel splice variants of TP53 helping accurate variant classification. The differences among various semi-automated interpretation platforms without manual curation highlight the importance of focused interpretation as the automatic classification systems do not apply the TP53-specific criteria. The predicted frequency of the TP53 P/LP variants in Hungary is 0.3 per million which most likely underestimates the real prevalence. The higher detection rate of disease-causing variants in patients with attenuated LFS phenotype compared to the control population (OR 12.5; p < 0.0001) may raise the potential benefit of the TP53 genetic testing as part of the hereditary cancer panels of patients with multiple or familial cancer even when they do not meet Chompret criteria. Tumours developed at an earlier age in phenotypic LFS patients compared to the attenuated LFS patients which complicates genetic counselling as currently there are no different recommendations in surveillance protocols for LFS, phenotypic LFS, and attenuated LFS patients.

A Randomized Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Pre-test Genetic Counseling Using an Artificial Intelligence Automated Chatbot and Traditional In-person Genetic Counseling in Women Newly Diagnosed with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Alternative service delivery models are critically needed to address the increasing demand for genetics services and limited supply of genetics experts available to provide pre-test counseling. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial of women with stage 0-III breast cancer not meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic testing. Patients were randomized to pre-test counseling with a Chatbot or a certified genetic counselor (GC). Participants completed a questionnaire assessing their knowledge of breast cancer genetics and a survey assessing satisfaction with their decision regarding pre-test counseling. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients were enrolled and 37 were randomized to genetic counseling with an automated Chatbot or a GC; 19 were randomized to Chatbot and 18 to traditional genetic counseling, and 13 (38.2%) had a family member with breast cancer but did not meet NCCN criteria. All patients opted to undergo genetic testing. Testing revealed six pathogenic variants in five patients (13.5%): CHEK2 (n = 2), MSH3 (n = 1), MUTYH (n = 1), and BRCA1 and HOXB13 (n = 1). No patients had a delay in time-to-treatment due to genetic testing turnaround time, nor did any patients undergo additional risk reducing surgery. There was no significant difference in median knowledge score between Chatbot and traditional counseling (11 vs. 12, p = 0.09) or in median patient satisfaction score (30 vs. 30, p = 0.19). CONCLUSION: Satisfaction and comprehension in patients with breast cancer undergoing pre-test genetic counseling using an automated Chatbot is comparable to in-person genetic testing. Utilization of this technology can offer improved access to care and a much-needed alternative for pre-test counseling.

A Community Health Worker Model to Support Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment and Genetic Testing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a community health worker-supported hereditary cancer risk-assessment and genetic testing program in a safety-net hospital serving more than 70% medically underserved patients. METHODS: This community health worker pilot program began in January 2020 at women's health clinics by administering original National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-based questionnaires. Patients meeting high-risk criteria were offered video-based genetic education and testing, notified of results using telehealth, and offered indicated counseling. We compared the rate of genetic counseling and testing in the first 18 months of the pilot program with that in the prior 18 months. RESULTS: In the first 18 months of the pilot program, 940 patients were screened through the community health worker program: 196 were identified as high-risk, 103 patients were tested, and pathogenic variants were identified in 10 (9.7%), two of whom had a personal cancer history. In addition, 73 patients were tested per usual practice by a certified genetic counselor: pathogenic variants were identified in 16 (21.9%), 11 (68.8%) of whom had a personal cancer history. In the 18 months before the program, 68 patients underwent genetic testing with a certified genetic counselor, pathogenic variants were identified in 16 (23.5%), 13 (81.3%) of whom had a personal cancer history. The community health worker program led to a significant increase in testing among unaffected patients based on family history alone (odds ratio [OR] 7.0; 95% CI 3.7-13.2; P <.001), paralleled by a respective significant increase in the identification of pathogenic variants (OR 4.33; 95% CI 1.0-18.9; P =.051). CONCLUSION: This pilot program demonstrates the feasibility of a community health worker-supported program, using self-administered questionnaires and telehealth-based genetic services in a primarily medically underserved population. This program improved the detection of unaffected high-risk patients based on family history, increasing the volume of tests performed for this indication. Programs of this type may improve family history-based hereditary cancer testing in medically underserved patients, further enabling cancer-prevention strategies.

Group meditation, addressing stigma, and "mental health days": Recommendations for integrating self-awareness practices into genetic counseling graduate programs.

Genetic counseling graduate programs provide a rigorous curriculum comprised of coursework encompassing counseling and medical genetics, fieldwork, and research experience. Students face similar emotional and mental demands as practicing genetic counselors while also experiencing stressors commonly associated with graduate study. Increased self-awareness may help combat these stressors. This mixed-methods study surveyed 154 genetic counseling graduate students to determine the types of self-awareness practices they would like to have included in their graduate training and surveyed 11 program faculty regarding the feasibility of implementing these practices. The students' most preferred practices were self-reflection (n = 73, 47.4%), support from peers, colleagues, and/or supervisors (n = 71, 46.1%), and mental health counseling (n = 71, 46.1%). Analysis of responses to open-ended questions capturing students' recommendations for programs yielded six recurrent themes: (1) Consistent, Structured Practice with Accountability, (2) Emphasis on Mental Health, (3) Practical Techniques, (4) Access to Resources, (5) Encouragement and Support, and (6) Barriers to Implementation. Many students suggested that programs should incorporate repetitive exercises that could be implemented on a schedule with an emphasis on consistency (Theme 1). Students also emphasized the importance of providing exposure to multiple examples of self-awareness practices, so they could find an approach that was most beneficial on an individual basis (Theme 3). These findings were shared with program faculty via a presentation at the Association for Genetic Counseling Program Directors annual meeting, and attendees were subsequently surveyed regarding self-awareness practices currently integrated into their curriculum, as well as the feasibility and likelihood of integrating new practices. Program faculty respondents indicated that most of the recommended practices were included in their curriculum already or would be feasible and likely to incorporate. These results provide insight into the attitudes of genetic counseling students toward structured practice in self-awareness and how genetic counseling graduate programs might integrate such practices into the curriculum.

Prenatal Diagnosis and Genetic Counseling of a Maternally Inherited Chromosome 15q11.2q13.1 Duplication in a Chinese Family.

Background: Maternally inherited chromosomal duplications in the region of 15q11.2q13.1 have been associated with neurodevelopmental disorders and other clinical manifestations. Prenatal diagnosis of such duplications is crucial for providing accurate genetic counseling and guiding clinical management decisions. Objective: This study aims to present the prenatal diagnosis and genetic counseling of a maternally inherited 15q11.2q13.1 duplication. Case Presentation: A 38-year-old gravida 1, para 0 woman underwent amniocentesis at 16 weeks of gestation due to advanced maternal age. Karyotype analysis was performed on cultured amniocytes, and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) was conducted on uncultured amniocytes. Results: The karyotype analysis of the cultured amniocytes revealed a normal karyotype of 46, XX. CMA identified a 4.21 Mb maternally inherited chromosomal duplication in the region of 15q11.2q13.1 (arr[GRCh37]15q11.2q13.1(23,894,550_28,107,154)x3). Conclusions: Copy number variants (CNVs) and unbalanced chromosomal abnormalities (UBCA) identified in prenatal cases require careful consideration and accurate interpretation to determine their potential harm or harmlessness compared to the norm. The combination of prenatal ultrasound, karyotype analysis, CMA, and genetic counseling proves helpful in the prenatal diagnosis of CNVs and UBCA.

Positive Impact of Implementing a Comprehensive Genetic Testing Protocol for Prostate Cancer Patients in a Multi-disciplinary Uro-oncology Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Prior to the 2017 Philadelphia Consensus Conference guidelines, genetic testing for prostate cancer was conducted based on personal and family history of malignancy pursuant to National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommendations. The updated 2019 guidelines addressed the subject of genetic testing by endorsing point-of-care genetic testing and referral to genetic counseling. However, limited literature is available regarding successful implementation of a streamlined method for genetic testing. This paper explores the benefits of implementing an on-site guideline-based genetic testing process for prostate cancer patients. METHODS: Data were retrospectively reviewed for 552 prostate cancer patients seen in a uro-oncology clinic since January 2017. Prior to September 2018 genetic testing was recommended based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, and swabs for testing were procured off-site 1 mile from the clinic (n = 78). After September 2018 genetic testing was recommended based on the Philadelphia Consensus Conference guidelines, and swabs for testing were procured at the clinic itself (n = 474). RESULTS: A statistically significant increase in testing compliance was observed after the implementation of on-site, guideline-based testing. Genetic testing compliance increased from 33.3% to 98.7%. The time to receive the genetic test results was also reduced from 38 days to 21 days. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an on-site, guideline-based genetic testing model for prostate cancer patients significantly improved compliance with genetic testing to 98.7% and decreased the time to receive genetic test results by 17 days. Adopting a guideline-based model with on-site genetic testing can significantly improve the detection rate for pathogenic and actionable mutations and increase the utilization of targeted therapies.

Implementing digital systems to facilitate genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: An observational study of 4 clinical workflows.

PURPOSE: National efforts have prioritized the identification of effective methods for increasing case ascertainment and delivery of evidence-based health care for individuals at elevated risk for hereditary cancers. METHODS: This study examined the uptake of genetic counseling and testing following the use of a digital cancer genetic risk assessment program implemented at 27 health care sites in 10 states using 1 of 4 clinical workflows: (1) traditional referral, (2) point-of-care scheduling, (3) point-of-care counseling/telegenetics, and (4) point-of-care testing. RESULTS: In 2019, 102,542 patients were screened and 33,113 (32%) were identified as at high risk and meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network genetic testing criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, or both. Among those identified at high risk, 5147 (16%) proceeded with genetic testing. Genetic counseling uptake was 11% among the sites with workflows that included seeing a genetic counselor before testing, with 88% of patients proceeding with genetic testing after counseling. Uptake of genetic testing across sites varied significantly by clinical workflow (6% referral, 10% point-of-care scheduling, 14% point-of-care counseling/telegenetics, and 35% point-of-care testing, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Study findings highlight the potential heterogeneity of effectiveness attributable to different care delivery approaches for implementing digital hereditary cancer risk screening programs.

Integration of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for All New Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends genetic testing (GT) for all women with breast cancer (BC), but implementation and uptake of GT has not been well-described. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for newly diagnosed BC patients or patients with a newly identified recurrence of BC seen in a multidisciplinary clinic (MDBC) who were offered genetic counseling (GC) and GT. RESULTS: The 138 women attending the MDBC had a median age of 54 years and comprised non-Hispanic whites (46%), Asians (28%), Hispanics (17%), blacks (4%), and other (5%). Of the 105 (76%) patients without prior GT, 100 (95%) accepted GC, with 93 (93%) of these 100 patients undergoing GT. The patients meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for GT were more likely to undergo GT. Testing was performed with a 67- to 84-gene panel, together with an 8- to 9-gene STAT panel if needed. Among 120 patients with reports available, including 33 patients previously tested, 15 (12%) were positive (1 BLM, 1 BRCA1, 3 BRCA2, 1 BRIP1, 1 CFTR, 1 CHEK2, 1 MUTYH, 1 PALB2, 1 PRSS1, 1 RAD50, 1 RET, and 2 TP53), 44 (37%) were negative, and 61 (51%) had an uncertain variant. The median time to STAT results (n = 50) was 8 days. The STAT results were available before surgery for 47 (98%) of the 48 STAT patients undergoing surgery. CONCLUSIONS: New BC patients attending the MDBC demonstrated high rates of acceptance of GC and GT. The combination of GC and GT can offer timely information critical to patient risk assessment and treatment planning.

Genetic Testing Among Patients with High-Risk Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate Cancers.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends genetic testing in patients with potentially hereditary breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers (HBOPP). Knowledge of genetic mutations impacts decisions about screening and treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 28,586 HBOPP patients diagnosed from 2013 to 2019 was conducted using a linked administrative-cancer database in the Seattle-Puget Sound SEER area. Guideline-concordant testing (GCT) was assessed annually according to guideline updates. Frequency of testing according to patient/cancer characteristics was evaluated using chi-squared tests, and factors associated with receipt of genetic testing were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Testing occurred in 17% of HBOPP patients, increasing from 9% in 2013 to 21% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Ovarian cancer had the highest testing (40%) and prostate cancer the lowest (4%). Age < 50, female sex, non-Hispanic White race, commercial insurance, urban location, family history of HBOPP, and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) were associated with increased testing (all p < 0.05). GCT increased from 38% in 2013 to 44% in 2019, and was highest for early age at breast cancer diagnosis, TNBC, male breast cancer, and breast cancer with family history of HBOPP (all > 70% in 2019), and lowest for metastatic prostate cancer (6%). CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of genetic testing for HBOPP cancer has increased over time. Though GCT is high for breast cancer, there are gaps in concordance among patients with other cancers. Increasing provider and patient education, genetic counseling, and insurance coverage for testing among HBOPP patients may improve guideline adherence.

Racial and ethnic variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results among individuals referred for genetic counseling at a large urban comprehensive cancer center.

PURPOSE: The prevalence of pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in populations other than Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) is not well defined. We describe the racial and ethnic-specific prevalence of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) among individuals referred for genetic testing in a large urban comprehensive cancer center over a 20-year period. METHODS: The population included 3,537 unrelated individuals who underwent genetic testing from January 1999 to October 2019 at the Karmanos Cancer Institute. We estimated the prevalence of pathogenic variants and VUS and evaluated associations with race and ethnicity for African American (AA), Arab, AJ and Hispanic individuals compared to Non-Hispanic Whites (NHW). We used multivariable models to adjust for other predictors of pathogenic variants. We also reported the most common pathogenic variants by racial and ethnic group. RESULTS: The racial and ethnic breakdown of our population was: NHW (68.9%), AA (20.3%), AJ (2.5%), Arab (2.2%), Hispanic (1.0%), Asian Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native (4.7%), and < 1% unknown. The overall prevalence of pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 was 8.9% and the prevalence of VUS was 5.6%. Compared to NHW, there were no racial or ethnic differences in the rate of pathogenic variants. However, AA individuals were more likely to have VUS in BRCA1 (adjusted OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.38-4.28) and AJ were more likely to have VUS in BRCA2 (adjusted OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.61-6.58). CONCLUSION: These results suggest the continued need for genetic testing and variant reclassification for individuals of all racial and ethnic groups.

Evaluation of family history in individuals with heterozygous BRCA pathogenic variants diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer in a single center in Italy.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations are responsible for 5% of breast cancer (BC) and 10-15% of ovarian cancer (EOC). The presence of a germline mutation and therefore the identification of subjects at high risk of developing cancer should ideally precede the onset of the disease, so that appropriate surveillance and risk-reducing treatments can be proposed. In this study, we revisited the family history (FH) of women who tested positive for BRCA mutations after being diagnosed with BC or EOC. METHODS: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®), and the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines were applied to the FH of 157 women who were referred to San Gerardo Hospital for genetic counseling. RESULTS: Almost 85% of women had an FH of BRCA-related cancer. 63.7% and 52.2% of women could have undergone genetic testing according to NCCN and AIOM testing criteria (p < .05) before tumor diagnosis. An FH of EOC was the most frequent NCCN criterion, followed by BC diagnosed <45 years old. Sixty-five percent of deceased women could have undergone genetic testing before developing cancer. CONCLUSIONS: FH is a powerful tool to identify high-risk individuals eligible for genetic counseling and testing. Testing of healthy individuals should be considered when an appropriately affected family member is unavailable for testing.