Development of a tiered and binned genetic counseling model for informed consent in the era of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility.

PURPOSE: Multiplex genetic testing, including both moderate- and high-penetrance genes for cancer susceptibility, is associated with greater uncertainty than traditional testing, presenting challenges to informed consent and genetic counseling. We sought to develop a new model for informed consent and genetic counseling for four ongoing studies. METHODS: Drawing from professional guidelines, literature, conceptual frameworks, and clinical experience, a multidisciplinary group developed a tiered-binned genetic counseling approach proposed to facilitate informed consent and improve outcomes of cancer susceptibility multiplex testing. RESULTS: In this model, tier 1 "indispensable" information is presented to all patients. More specific tier 2 information is provided to support variable informational needs among diverse patient populations. Clinically relevant information is "binned" into groups to minimize information overload, support informed decision making, and facilitate adaptive responses to testing. Seven essential elements of informed consent are provided to address the unique limitations, risks, and uncertainties of multiplex testing. CONCLUSION: A tiered-binned model for informed consent and genetic counseling has the potential to address the challenges of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility and to support informed decision making and adaptive responses to testing. Future prospective studies including patient-reported outcomes are needed to inform how to best incorporate multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility into clinical practice.Genet Med 17 6, 485-492.

Clinical management of TP53 mosaic variants found on germline genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: Germline heterozygous TP53 pathogenic variants (PVs) cause Li Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS, OMIM#151623). TP53 PVs at lower-than-expected variant allele frequencies (VAF) may reflect postzygotic mosaicism (PZM) or clonal hematopoiesis (CH); however, no guidelines exist for workup and clinical management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of probands who presented to an academic cancer genetics program with a TP53 PV result on germline genetic testing. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 125 unrelated probands (17 %) were found to harbor a TP53 PV with VAF<30 % or a designation of "mosaic". A diagnosis of PZM was made in nine (43 %) due to a clinical phenotype consistent with LFS with (n = 8) or without (n = 1) positive ancillary tissue testing. Twelve patients (57 %) were diagnosed with presumed CH (pCH) due to a diagnosis of a myeloproliferative neoplasm, negative ancillary tissue testing, clinical phenotype not meeting LFS criteria, no cancer, and/or no first cancer age<50. Of the 19 patients with biological offspring, nine had either partial or complete offspring testing, all negative. CONCLUSIONS: Determining the etiology of low VAF TP53 PVs requires ancillary tissue testing and incorporation of clinical phenotype. Discerning PZM versus CH is important to provide optimal care and follow-up.