Patient uptake of updated genetic testing following uninformative BRCA1 and BRCA2 results.

Advances have dated the genetic testing initially offered to evaluate for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risks. Previous research has demonstrated that many patients have not updated testing. This study reviewed the incidence of additional analysis after an uninformative BRCA1/2 result and offered updated testing with limited barriers to those who had not completed. After viewing an educational video and providing informed consent, eligible patients were mailed a saliva collection kit to complete an 84-gene hereditary cancer panel at no personal cost. A total of 704 patients had completed BRCA1/2 only testing between 2001 and 2020. Fifteen percent (N = 102) of the 671 patients with an uninformative BRCA1/2 result had already completed expanded testing. Most, 74 of 102 (73%), had been rereferred to medical genetics during a clinical visit related to cancer care. Those who had already completed additional testing were more likely to have a personal history of cancer (92% vs. 79%, p = 0.002) and live locally (p = 0.032). Invitation to complete updated testing through this study was sent to 372 people, and 116 (31%) consented to participate. For 142 of the 256 who did not proceed with testing through the study, proof of receipt of research information was available. In total, 22 pathogenic variants were reported in 21 of the 226 patients with updated testing from before and including our study: ATM (4), CHEK2 (4), LZTR1 (1), MUTYH (3), NBN (1), NF1 (1), NTHL1 (1), PALB2 (4), PMS2 (1), RAD50 (1), and SPINK1 (1). Many potential barriers of retesting were eliminated by removing personal costs or travel requirements. Still, only about 30% of patients agreed to participate, and a significant portion elected not to proceed. Future research could focus on the discovery of other factors that dissuade patients and what measures may better inform them on potential benefits.

Patients with pathogenic variants for breast cancer other than BRCA1 and BRCA2: qualitative interviews about health care experiences.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes has been revolutionized by next-generation sequencing, which allows for simultaneous review of numerous genes. Multigene panels are regularly offered to patients because of their scope and decreased cost and turnaround time. However, many genes included on larger panels have not been studied as extensively as BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2), and their clinical effects are often not as well established. METHODS: We identified patients who received positive test results for pathogenic variants of breast cancer genes from January 2012 through May 2018. We mailed a survey and conducted qualitative interviews to explore the personal and health care experiences of patients with pathogenic variants of BRCA1/2 and patients with "other" (ie, non-BRCA1/2 or PALB2; PTEN; ATM; TP53; NBM, RAD51C; MSH6) variants. We compared the experiences of these patients. RESULTS: Fifty-nine out of 128 individuals responded to the survey (46%). Thirty-two patients had BRCA1/2 variants, and 27 had other variants. (49 women and 10 men; median [range] age, 63 [34-87] years). We interviewed 21 patients (17 women and 4 men; median [range] age, 59.6 [34-82] years). Of the interview participants, ten patients had BRCA1/2 variants, and 11 had non-BRCA1/2 variants. Patients reported receiving poor information about their genetic test results, and they often educated their physicians about their results. Some patients believed that they had been ignored or "brushed off" by health care professionals because non-BRCA1/2 genes are less understood outside the genetics research community. Patients with BRCA1/2 variants had similar problems with health care providers, despite increased awareness and established guidelines about BRCA1/2. CONCLUSIONS: Research is required to understand the clinical significance and proper management of diseases attributable to newly characterized hereditary cancer genes. Additional evaluation of patient and provider education should be at the forefront of efforts to improve patient care.

Utilization and Outcomes of Multigene Panel Testing in Patients With Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend germline genetic testing (GT) for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aims to evaluate the utilization and outcomes of multigene panel GT in patients with PDAC. METHODS: This retrospective, multisite study included patients with PDAC diagnosed between May 2018 and August 2020 at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. Discussion, uptake, and outcomes of GT were compared before (May 1, 2018-May 1, 2019) and after (August 1, 2019-August 1, 2020) the guideline update, accounting for a transition period. RESULTS: The study identified 533 patients with PDAC, with 321 (60.2%) preguideline and 212 (39.8%) postguideline. Patient characteristics did not differ between the preguideline and postguideline periods. GT was discussed in 34.3% (110 of 321) of preguideline and 39.6% (84 of 212) of postguideline patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.80]) and subsequently performed in 80.9% (89 of 110) of preguideline and 75.0% (63 of 84) of postguideline patients (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.61]). Of 152 tested patients, 26 (17.1%) had a pathogenic variant (PV), of whom 17 (11.2%; 17 of 152) were PDAC-associated. Over the entire study period, GT was more likely in younger patients (65 v 70 years; P < .001), those seen by a medical oncologist (82.9% v 69.0%; P < .001), and those surviving more than 12 months from diagnosis (70.4% v 43.4%; P < .001). Demographics and personal/family cancer history were comparable between patients with and without a PDAC PV. CONCLUSION: GT remains underutilized despite National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. Given the poor prognosis of PDAC and potential implications of GT, efforts to increase utilization are needed to provide surveillance and support to both patients with PDAC and at-risk family members.

Identification of individuals at high-risk for pancreatic cancer using a digital patient-input tool combining family cancer history screening and new-onset diabetes.

Capturing family history might be a valuable tool for identification of individuals at increased risk of pancreatic cancer, which would allow enrollment into pancreatic surveillance programs. In addition, weight loss and concurrent new-onset diabetes may be utilized as an early marker for pancreatic cancer. This study evaluates the yield of combining family history and the Enriching New-Onset Diabetes for Pancreatic Cancer (ENDPAC) model to identify individuals who could benefit from pancreatic surveillance. A novel questionnaire and digital input tool was created that combined questions on family cancer history and criteria of the ENDPAC model. Individuals meeting ENDPAC criteria were enrolled directly in the high-risk pancreatic clinic. Individuals who met the criteria for a significant family history of cancer were offered referral to a genetic counselor. The questionnaire was completed by 453 patients. Of those, 25.8% (117/453) had significant familial risk factors. Eighteen individuals (15.4%) completed genetic testing previously, of whom five had a pathogenic variant. Thirty-four (29.9%) out of 117 individuals with a strong family history - flagged by the questionnaire - underwent genetic testing. Four (11.8%) of these patients harbored a pathogenic variant. Additionally, through cascade family testing, two siblings were found to carry pathogenic variants. Four (0.9%) of the 453 patients matched ENDPAC criteria. Two were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and the others were enrolled in the surveillance program. In conclusion, identification of high-risk individuals for pancreatic cancer can be achieved by combining family history screening and the ENDPAC model to facilitate referral to genetic counseling and high-risk clinics.

Was it worth it? Patients' perspectives on the perceived value of genomic-based individualized medicine.

The value of genomic sequencing is often understood in terms of its ability to affect diagnosis or treatment. In these terms, successes occur only in a minority of cases. This paper presents views from patients who had exome sequencing done clinically to explore how they perceive the utility of genomic medicine. The authors used semi-structured, qualitative interviews in order to study patients' attitudes toward genomic sequencing in oncology and rare-disease settings. Participants from 37 cases were interviewed. In terms of the testing's key values-regardless of having received what clinicians described as meaningful results-participants expressed four qualities that are separate from traditional views of clinical utility: Participants felt they had been empowered over their own health. They felt they had contributed altruistically to the progress of genomic technology in medicine. They felt their suffering had been legitimated. They also felt a sense of closure, having done everything they could. Patients expressed overwhelmingly positive attitudes toward sequencing. Their rationale was not solely based on the results' clinical utility. It is important for clinicians to understand this non-medical reasoning as it pertains to patient decision-making and informed consent.

Patients' views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing.

This article characterizes the opinions of patients and family members of patients undergoing clinical genomic-based testing regarding the return of incidental findings from these tests. Over sixteen months, we conducted 55 in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their preferences regarding which types of results they would like returned to them. Responses indicate a diversity of attitudes toward the return of incidental findings and a diversity of justifications for those attitudes. The majority of participants also described an imperative to include the patient in deciding which results to return rather than having universal, predetermined rules governing results disclosure. The results demonstrate the importance of a patient centered-approach to returning incidental findings.