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.