Examining the effectiveness and implementation of patient treatment decision-aid tools for men with localised prostate cancer: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer (LPC) often face a difficult process deciding on a treatment choice that suits their personal preferences. This systematic review examines the impact of patient treatment decision-aids (DAs) on decisional outcomes and treatment choice for men diagnosed with LPC. Our secondary aim was to examine how DAs have been implemented into routine clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted up to June 2022 using the following databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science. Articles were included if they evaluated the effectiveness of treatment DAs for LPC patients on various decisional outcomes and treatment choice. The Mixed-Method Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality and risk of bias. Data on implementation outcomes were also extracted if reported. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were included for the analysis (seven non-randomised studies, 16 randomised control trials, and one qualitative study). Results showed DAs have the potential to improve patient knowledge but revealed no effects on decisional regret or preparedness in decision-making. Due to the variability in methodology among studies, results varied widely for treatment choice, decision-making involvement, decisional conflict, and treatment decision satisfaction. At least one implementation outcome was reported in 11 of the included studies, with the most commonly assessed outcomes being acceptability and appropriateness. CONCLUSIONS: While DAs appear to improve knowledge, further qualitative evaluations and standardised assessments are needed to better understand men's experiences using DAs and to determine advantages and optimal ways to implement DAs into the treatment decision-making pathway.

"Out of the blue": A qualitative study exploring the experiences of women and next of kin receiving unexpected results from BRA-STRAP research gene panel testing.

In the genomic era, the availability of gene panel and whole genome/exome sequencing is rapidly increasing. Opportunities for providing former patients with new genetic information are also increasing over time and recontacting former patients with new information is likely to become more common. Breast cancer Refined Analysis of Sequence Tests-Risk And Penetrance (BRA-STRAP) is an Australian study of individuals who had previously undertaken BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing, with no pathogenic variants detected. Using a waiver of consent, stored DNA samples were retested using a breast/ovarian cancer gene panel and clinically significant results returned to the patient (or next of kin, if deceased). This qualitative study aimed to explore patient experiences, opinions, and expectations of recontacting in the Australian hereditary cancer setting. Participants were familial cancer clinic patients (or next of kin) who were notified of a new pathogenic variant identified via BRA-STRAP. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted approximately 6 weeks post-result. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Thirty participants (all female; average age = 57; range 36-84) were interviewed. Twenty-five were probands, and five were next of kin. Most women reported initial shock upon being recontacted with unexpected news, after having obtained a sense of closure related to their initial genetic testing experiences and cancer diagnosis. For most, this initial distress was short-lived, followed by a process of readjustment, meaning-making and adaptation that was facilitated by perceived clinical and personal utility of the information. Women were overall satisfied with the waiver of consent approach and recontacting process. Results are in line with previous studies suggesting that patients have positive attitudes about recontacting. Women in this study valued new genetic information gained from retesting and were satisfied with the BRA-STRAP recontact model. Practice implications to facilitate readjustment and promote psychosocial adaptation were identified.

What would I do? Perspectives on the factors underlying Lynch syndrome genetic testing and results sharing decisions for high-risk colorectal cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Universal tumour testing for Lynch syndrome (LS) in all incident colorectal cancers (CRCs) and sequential diagnostic genetic testing is cost-effective in Australia. Because of this, our study aimed to understand factors underlying possible decisions faced by tumour test-positive CRC patients and their at-risk relatives throughout the LS diagnosis pathway. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 23 participants, using four hypothetical scenarios. Vignette-guided closed- and open-ended questions asked about LS genetic testing uptake, discussing diagnosis with at-risk relatives, and risk-reducing interventions. Personal perspectives on genetic testing were collected pre-post vignette discussion. Inductive thematic analysis was performed on open-ended questions. Decisional pathway diagrams were developed to convey factors influencing complex decision-making processes. RESULTS: Participant responses incorporated unfolding scenario information, resulting in three decision themes: (1) wanting to know one's LS status; (2) informing family about LS; (3) navigating risk-reducing interventions. Across all themes, 'knowledge' emerged as a facilitator, and 'negative emotional experience' as a barrier. Personal supportive views toward genetic testing increased post-interview. CONCLUSIONS: When communicating with tumour test-positive CRC patients or their relatives about LS genetic testing, providing guidance/resources to inform decisions around risk-reducing interventions and informing family members is critical. Scenario-driven interviews provide insight into what individuals might do when facing complex healthcare decisions and could aid informed decision-making. This approach may be applicable in other conditions, particularly with mainstreaming being increasingly introduced into the genetic context.

Lynch syndrome testing of colorectal cancer patients in a high-income country with universal healthcare: a retrospective study of current practice and gaps in seven australian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: To inform effective genomic medicine strategies, it is important to examine current approaches and gaps in well-established applications. Lynch syndrome (LS) causes 3-5% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). While guidelines commonly recommend LS tumour testing of all CRC patients, implementation in health systems is known to be highly variable. To provide insights on the heterogeneity in practice and current bottlenecks in a high-income country with universal healthcare, we characterise the approaches and gaps in LS testing and referral in seven Australian hospitals across three states. METHODS: We obtained surgery, pathology, and genetics services data for 1,624 patients who underwent CRC resections from 01/01/2017 to 31/12/2018 in the included hospitals. RESULTS: Tumour testing approaches differed between hospitals, with 0-19% of patients missing mismatch repair deficiency test results (total 211/1,624 patients). Tumour tests to exclude somatic MLH1 loss were incomplete at five hospitals (42/187 patients). Of 74 patients with tumour tests completed appropriately and indicating high risk of LS, 36 (49%) were missing a record of referral to genetics services for diagnostic testing, with higher missingness for older patients (0% of patients aged ≤ 40 years, 76% of patients aged > 70 years). Of 38 patients with high-risk tumour test results and genetics services referral, diagnostic testing was carried out for 25 (89%) and identified a LS pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant for 11 patients (44% of 25; 0.7% of 1,624 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Given the LS testing and referral gaps, further work is needed to identify strategies for successful integration of LS testing into clinical care, and provide a model for hereditary cancers and broader genomic medicine. Standardised reporting may help clinicians interpret tumour test results and initiate further actions.

The design, implementation, and effectiveness of intervention strategies aimed at improving genetic referral practices: a systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: Despite rapid advancements in genetics and genomics, referral practices remain suboptimal. This systematic review assesses the extent to which approaches from implementation science have been applied to address suboptimal genetic referral practices. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO generated 7,794 articles, of which 28 were included. Lay barriers were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and interventions mapped to behavior change techniques. Use of implementation and behavior change frameworks was assessed, and the Theory and Techniques Tool used to determine theoretical alignment. RESULTS: Knowledge was the most frequent retrospectively TDF-coded barrier, followed by environmental context and resources, and skills. Significant referral improvements occurred in 56% of studies. Among these, the most frequent interventions were clinical data review systems, family history collection and referral tools, and embedding genetics staff into nongenetic specialties. Few studies used implementation frameworks or reported implementation outcomes, though some deployed intuitive strategies that aligned with theory. CONCLUSION: Genetic referral interventions are rarely informed by implementation and/or behavior change theories, limiting opportunities for learning across contexts. Retrospective coding has provided a suite of theoretically linked strategies, which may be useful for informing future efforts. Incorporating these strategies into clinical guidelines may facilitate operationalization within the system.

Impact of national guidelines on use of BRCA1/2 germline testing, risk management advice given to women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and uptake of advice.

BACKGROUND: This nationwide study assessed the impact of nationally agreed cancer genetics guidelines on use of BRCA1/2 germline testing, risk management advice given by health professionals to women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and uptake of such advice by patients. METHODS: Clinic files of 883 women who had initial proband screens for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants at 12 familial cancer clinics between July 2008-July 2009 (i.e. before guideline release), July 2010-July 2011 and July 2012-July 2013 (both after guideline release) were audited to determine reason given for genetic testing. Separately, the clinic files of 599 female carriers without a personal history of breast/ovarian cancer who underwent BRCA1/2 predictive genetic testing and received their results pre- and post-guideline were audited to ascertain the risk management advice given by health professionals. Carriers included in this audit were invited to participate in a telephone interview to assess uptake of advice, and 329 agreed to participate. RESULTS: There were no significant changes in the percentages of tested patients meeting at least one published indication for genetic testing - 79, 77 and 78% of files met criteria before guideline, and two-, and four-years post-guideline, respectively (χ = 0.25, p = 0.88). Rates of documentation of post-test risk management advice as per guidelines increased significantly from pre- to post-guideline for 6/9 risk management strategies. The strategies with the highest compliance amongst carriers or awareness post-release of guidelines were annual magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography in women 30-50 years (97%) and annual mammography in women > 50 years (92%). Of women aged over 40 years, 41% had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. Amongst women aged > 40 years, 75% had a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Amongst women who had not had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, only 6% took risk-reducing medication. Fear of side-effects was cited as the main reasons for not taking these medicines by 73% of women. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines did not change the percentages of tested patients meeting genetic testing criteria but improved documentation of risk management advice by health professionals. Effective approaches to enhance compliance with guidelines are needed to improve risk management and quality of care.

Genetics in palliative oncology: a missing agenda? A review of the literature and future directions.

PURPOSE: In the palliative oncology setting, genetic assessment may not impact on the patient's management but can be of vital importance to their surviving relatives. Despite care of the family being central to the ethos of palliative care, little is known about how hereditary aspects of cancer are addressed in this setting. This review aims to examine current practices, identify practice barriers and determine the genetic information and support needs of patients, family members and health providers. METHODS: Key databases were systematically searched to identify both quantitative and qualitative studies that addressed these aims. Data was extracted and coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eight studies were included for review. Suboptimal genetic practices were identified, with lack of knowledge and poor confidence amongst providers reported as barriers in both qualitative and quantitative studies. Providers expressed concern about the emotional impact of initiating these discussions late in the disease trajectory; however, qualitative interviews amongst palliative patients suggested there may be emotional benefits. CONCLUSIONS: All lines of evidence suggest that genetics is currently missing from the palliative agenda, signifying lost opportunities for mutation detection, genetic counselling and appropriate risk management for surviving relatives. There is an urgent need for interventions to improve provider knowledge and awareness of genetic referral pathways and for research into the genetic information and support needs of palliative care patients.

Referral of patients for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: A survey of obstetricians.

BACKGROUND: Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a molecular diagnostic technique in which embryos are tested for specific genetic abnormalities to enable the selection of those unaffected by the condition. Previous Australian evidence suggested that women who are not informed about PGD by their obstetrician feel disempowered about not being given this option. AIMS: This study aimed to explore obstetrician knowledge regarding PGD and identify barriers to referral. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An invitation to the study with a link to an online questionnaire was e-mailed by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to their members. RESULTS: In total, 372 practising obstetricians responded. Perceptions of their patients' financial status and ability to access PGD were identified as barriers to referral. There was variability in referral for PGD and/or genetic services according to the clinical scenario and in the perceived appropriateness of PGD for different indications. Obstetricians who had undergone professional development related to PGD were more likely to discuss PGD than those who had not (χ2 = 6.44; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the need for additional training, development of educational resources and awareness of appropriate referral pathways to ensure that those couples who are eligible for PGD are informed.

In person and virtual process mapping experiences to capture and explore variability in clinical practice: application to genetic referral pathways across seven Australian hospital networks.

Genetic referral for Lynch syndrome (LS) exemplifies complex clinical pathways. Identifying target behaviours (TBs) for change and associated barriers requires structured group consultation activities with busy clinicians - consolidating implementation activities whilst retaining rigour is crucial. This study aimed to: i) use process mapping to gain in-depth understandings of site-specific LS testing and referral practices in Australian hospitals and support identification of TBs for change, ii) explore if barriers to identified TBs could be identified through process mapping focus-group data, and iii) demonstrate pandemic-induced transition from in-person to virtual group interactive process mapping methods. LS clinical stakeholders attended interactive in-person or virtual focus groups to develop site-specific "process maps" visually representing referral pathways. Content analysis of transcriptions informed site-specific process maps, then clinical audit data was compared to highlight TBs for change. TBs were reviewed in follow-up focus groups. Secondary thematic analysis explored barriers to identified TBs, coded against the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The transition from in-person to pandemic-induced virtual group interactive process mapping methods was documented. Process mapping highlighted six key areas of clinical practice variation across sites and site-specific TBs for change were identified. Key barriers to identified TBs emerged, categorised to seven TDF domains. Process mapping revealed variations in clinical practices surrounding LS referral between sites. Incorporating qualitative perspectives enhances process mapping by facilitating identification of TBs for change and barriers, providing a pathway to developing targeted interventions. Virtual process mapping activities produced detailed data and enabled comprehensive map development.

To achieve change in the health system using implementation approaches, time-poor clinicians must engage in information-gathering and idea-generation activities. This research revealed that qualitative process mapping focus groups held both in-person and virtually can be used to streamline these activities, by simultaneously identifying target behaviours for change, and barriers to change, while gaining information about site-specific clinical processes. Hospital process mapping shows that complex clinical processes vary significantly between sites, and that understanding local variation is crucial to developing targeted interventions. This study has informed new approaches to implementation research methods.

Building capacity from within: qualitative evaluation of a training program aimed at upskilling healthcare workers in delivering an evidence-based implementation approach.

Translating evidence into complex health systems is an ongoing challenge. Building the capacity of healthcare workers in behavioral and implementation science methods may facilitate the use of evidence-based implementation approaches, leading to sustainable and effective translation. The aim was to describe the development, contents and evaluation of a training workshop aimed at upskilling hospital-embedded staff to deliver an evidence-based implementation approach. The Hide and Seek Project (HaSP) is a cluster randomized controlled trial testing two implementation approaches for improving hereditary cancer referral at eight Australian hospitals. Healthcare workers were recruited as "Implementation Leads" and trained via a one-day workshop-TRAining in evideNce-baSed ImpLementATion for hEalth (TRANSLATE). The purpose of TRANSLATE was to upskill Implementation Leads in the delivery of HaSP, as well as implementation science methods more broadly. Implementation Leads participated in semi-structured evaluation interviews, which were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Nine Implementation Leads from various professional backgrounds completed the training. Four key themes were identified: (i) training day reactions, (ii) learning, (iii) implementation barriers and facilitators, and (iv) building health system capacity for implementation. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction, and anticipated that the knowledge and skills may be useful in the future. We describe a novel training program focused on the delivery of evidence-based implementation within health systems. Guided by insights from this study, methods to deliver the training on a larger scale and across different contexts are being explored. The prolonged impact of TRANSLATE will be further evaluated at trial completion. Trial registration: ANZCTR, ACTRN12618001072202. Registered on June 27, 2018.

Cancer care disruption and reorganisation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia: A patient, carer and healthcare worker perspective.

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted cancer care worldwide. Disruptions have been seen across all facets of care. While the long-term impact of COVID-19 remains unclear, the immediate impacts on patients, their carers and the healthcare workforce are increasingly evident. This study describes disruptions and reorganisation of cancer services in Australia since the onset of COVID-19, from the perspectives of people affected by cancer and healthcare workers. Two separate online cross-sectional surveys were completed by: a) cancer patients, survivors, carers, family members or friends (n = 852) and b) healthcare workers (n = 150). Descriptive analyses of quantitative survey data were conducted, followed by inductive thematic content analyses of qualitative survey responses relating to cancer care disruption and perceptions of telehealth. Overall, 42% of cancer patients and survivors reported experiencing some level of care disruption. A further 43% of healthcare workers reported atypical delays in delivering cancer care, and 50% agreed that patient access to research and clinical trials had been reduced. Almost three quarters (73%) of patients and carers reported using telehealth following the onset of COVID-19, with high overall satisfaction. However, gaps were identified in provision of psychological support and 20% of participants reported that they were unlikely to use telehealth again. The reorganisation of cancer care increased the psychological and practical burden on carers, with hospital visitation restrictions and appointment changes reducing their ability to provide essential support. COVID-19 has exacerbated a stressful and uncertain time for people affected by cancer and healthcare workers. Service reconfiguration and the adoption of telehealth have been essential adaptations for the pandemic response, offering long-term value. However, our findings highlight the need to better integrate psychosocial support and the important role of carers into evolving pandemic response measures. Learnings from this study could inform service improvements that would benefit patients and carers longer-term.

Population-based estimates of breast cancer risk for carriers of pathogenic variants identified by gene-panel testing.

Population-based estimates of breast cancer risk for carriers of pathogenic variants identified by gene-panel testing are urgently required. Most prior research has been based on women selected for high-risk features and more data is needed to make inference about breast cancer risk for women unselected for family history, an important consideration of population screening. We tested 1464 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 862 age-matched controls participating in the Australian Breast Cancer Family Study (ABCFS), and 6549 healthy, older Australian women enroled in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) study for rare germline variants using a 24-gene-panel. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using unconditional logistic regression adjusted for age and other potential confounders. We identified pathogenic variants in 11.1% of the ABCFS cases, 3.7% of the ABCFS controls and 2.2% of the ASPREE (control) participants. The estimated breast cancer OR [95% confidence interval] was 5.3 [2.1-16.2] for BRCA1, 4.0 [1.9-9.1] for BRCA2, 3.4 [1.4-8.4] for ATM and 4.3 [1.0-17.0] for PALB2. Our findings provide a population-based perspective to gene-panel testing for breast cancer predisposition and opportunities to improve predictors for identifying women who carry pathogenic variants in breast cancer predisposition genes.

Aligning intuition and theory: enhancing the replicability of behaviour change interventions in cancer genetics.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable encouragement for healthcare professionals to use or be clear about the theory used in their improvement programmes, the uptake of these approaches to design interventions or report their content is lacking. Recommendations suggest healthcare practitioners work with social and/or behavioural scientists to gain expertise in programme theory, ideally before, but even during or after the work is done. We aim to demonstrate the extent to which intuitive intervention strategies designed by healthcare professionals to overcome patient barriers to communicating genetic cancer risk information to family members align with a theoretical framework of behaviour change. METHODS: As part of a pre-post intervention study, a team of genetic counsellors aimed to understand, and design interventions to overcome, the major barriers a group of familial cancer patients face around communicating hereditary cancer risk information to their relatives. A behavioural change specialist worked with the team to review and recode barriers and interventions according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and 93 behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Resulting BCTs were cross-referenced against the Theory and Techniques Tool to examine whether evidence-based mechanistic links have been established to date. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the genetic counsellor coded barriers, which when recoded according to the TDF represented seven domains of behaviour change. Forty-five experiential and intuitive interventions were used to tackle key barriers. These were represented by 21 BCTs, which were found to be used on 131 occasions. The full mapping exercise is presented, resulting in a suite of intervention strategies explicitly linked to a theoretical framework. Structured, written reflections were provided retrospectively by the core clinical team. CONCLUSIONS: Although the ideal is to use theory prospectively, or even whilst a project is underway, making links between theory and interventions explicit, even retrospectively, can contribute towards standardising intervention strategies, furthering understanding of intervention effects, and enhancing the opportunities for accurate replicability and generalisability across other settings. Demonstrating to healthcare professionals how their intuition aligns with theory may highlight the additional benefits that theory has to offer and serve to promote its use in improvement.

Understanding implementation success: protocol for an in-depth, mixed-methods process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial testing methods to improve detection of Lynch syndrome in Australian hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: In multisite intervention trials, implementation success often varies widely across settings. Process evaluations are crucial to interpreting trial outcomes and understanding contextual factors and causal chains necessary for successful implementation. Lynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer predisposition conferring an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and other cancer types. Despite systematic screening protocols to identify Lynch syndrome, the condition remains largely underdiagnosed. The Hide and Seek Project ('HaSP') is a cluster randomised controlled trial determining the effectiveness of two approaches to improving Lynch syndrome detection at eight Australian hospital networks. To enhance widespread implementation of optimal Lynch syndrome identification, there is a need to understand not only what works, but also why, in what contexts, and at what costs. Here we describe an in-depth investigation of factors influencing successful implementation of procedures evaluated in the HaSP trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods, theory-driven process evaluation will be undertaken in parallel to the HaSP trial. Data will include: interviews of Implementation Leads and Lynch syndrome stakeholders, pre-post implementation questionnaires, audio analysis of meetings and focus groups, observation of multidisciplinary team meetings, fidelity checklists and project log analysis. Results will be triangulated and coded, drawing on the Theoretical Domains Framework, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Proctor's implementation outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Use of a theory-based process evaluation will enhance interpretation and generalisability of HaSP trial findings, and contribute to the implementation research field by furthering understanding of the conditions necessary for implementation success. Ethical approval has been granted and results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. At trial completion, key findings will be fed back to sites to enable refinement of intervention strategies, both in the context of Lynch syndrome and for the possible generalisability of intervention components in other genetic and broader clinical specialties. HASP TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (Identifier: ACTRN12618001072202). Registered 27 June 2018. http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12618001072202.aspx.

Comparing theory and non-theory based implementation approaches to improving referral practices in cancer genetics: a cluster randomised trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited, cancer predisposition syndrome associated with an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and other cancer types. Identifying individuals with LS allows access to cancer risk management strategies proven to reduce cancer incidence and improve survival. However, LS is underdiagnosed and genetic referral rates are poor. Improving LS referral is complex, and requires multisystem behaviour change. Although barriers have been identified, evidence-based strategies to facilitate behaviour change are lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of a theory-based implementation approach against a non-theory based approach for improving detection of LS amongst Australian patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: A two-arm parallel cluster randomised trial design will be used to compare two identical, structured implementation approaches, distinguished only by the use of theory to identify barriers and design targeted intervention strategies, to improve LS referral practices in eight large Australian hospital networks. Each hospital network will be randomly allocated to a trial arm, with stratification by state. A trained healthcare professional will lead the following phases at each site: (1) undertake baseline clinical practice audits, (2) form multidisciplinary Implementation Teams, (3) identify target behaviours for practice change, (4) identify barriers to change, (5) generate intervention strategies, (6) support staff to implement interventions and (7) evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention using post-implementation clinical data. The theoretical and non-theoretical components of each trial arm will be distinguished in phases 4-5. Study outcomes include a LS referral process map for each hospital network, with evaluation of the proportion of patients with risk-appropriate completion of the LS referral pathway within 2 months of CRC resection pre and post implementation. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine the more effective approach for improving the detection of LS amongst patients with CRC, whilst also advancing understanding of the impact of theory-based implementation approaches in complex health systems and the feasibility of training healthcare professionals to use them. Insights gained will guide the development of future interventions to improve LS identification on a larger scale and across different contexts, as well as efforts to address the gap between evidence and practice in the rapidly evolving field of genomic research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR, ACTRN12618001072202 . Registered on 27 June 2018.

Genetic Testing and Clinical Management Practices for Variants in Non-BRCA1/2 Breast (and Breast/Ovarian) Cancer Susceptibility Genes: An International Survey by the Evidence-Based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) Clinical Working Group.

PURPOSE: To describe a snapshot of international genetic testing practices, specifically regarding the use of multigene panels, for hereditary breast/ovarian cancers. We conducted a survey through the Evidence-Based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) consortium, covering questions about 16 non-BRCA1/2 genes. METHODS: Data were collected via in-person and paper/electronic surveys. ENIGMA members from around the world were invited to participate. Additional information was collected via country networks in the United Kingdom and in Italy. RESULTS: Responses from 61 cancer genetics practices across 20 countries showed that 16 genes were tested by > 50% of the centers, but only six (PALB2, TP53, PTEN, CHEK2, ATM, and BRIP1) were tested regularly. US centers tested the genes most often, whereas United Kingdom and Italian centers with no direct ENIGMA affiliation at the time of the survey were the least likely to regularly test them. Most centers tested the 16 genes through multigene panels; some centers tested TP53, PTEN, and other cancer syndrome-associated genes individually. Most centers reported (likely) pathogenic variants to patients and would test family members for such variants. Gene-specific guidelines for breast and ovarian cancer risk management were limited and differed among countries, especially with regard to starting age and type of imaging and risk-reducing surgery recommendations. CONCLUSION: Currently, a small number of genes beyond BRCA1/2 are routinely analyzed worldwide, and management guidelines are limited and largely based on expert opinion. To attain clinical implementation of multigene panel testing through evidence-based management practices, it is paramount that clinicians (and patients) participate in international initiatives that share panel testing data, interpret sequence variants, and collect prospective data to underpin risk estimates and evaluate the outcome of risk intervention strategies.