Universal Genetic Testing for Newly Diagnosed Invasive Breast Cancer.

Importance: Between 5% and 10% of breast cancer cases are associated with an inherited germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant (GPV) in a breast cancer susceptibility gene (BCSG), which could alter local and systemic therapy recommendations. Traditional genetic testing criteria misses a proportion of these cases. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence and clinicopathological associations of GPVs in 2 groups of BCSGs among an ethnically diverse cohort of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study, conducted at 3 Montreal hospitals between September 2019 and April 2022, offered universal genetic counseling and testing to all women with a first diagnosis of invasive breast cancer. Women were offered an obligatory primary panel of BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 (B1B2P2) and an optional secondary panel of 14 additional BCSGs. Eligible participants were women 18 years of age or older who received a diagnosis of a first primary invasive breast cancer not more than 6 months before the time of referral to the study. Data were analyzed from November 2023 to June 2024. Results: Of 1017 referred patients, 805 were eligible and offered genetic counseling and testing, and 729 of those 805 (90.6%) consented to be tested. The median age at breast cancer diagnosis was 53 years (range, 23-91 years), and 65.4% were White and of European ancestry. Fifty-four GPVs were identified in 53 patients (7.3%), including 39 patients (5.3%) with B1B2P2 and 15 patients (2.1%) with 6 of the 14 secondary panel BCSGs (ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2, RAD51D, and STK11). On multivariable analysis, clinical factors independently associated with B1B2P2-positive status included being younger than 40 years of age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 6.83; 95% CI, 2.22-20.90), triple-negative breast cancer (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.20-8.43), high grade disease (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.05-2.70), and family history of ovarian cancer (OR, 9.75; 95% CI, 2.65-35.85). Of 39 B1B2P2-positive patients, 13 (33.3%) were eligible for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional universal genetic testing study of women with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer, the prevalence of GPVs was 7.3%, with 5.3% of patients testing positive for B1B2P2. Among B1B2P2-women women, one-third were eligible for PARP inhibitors.

Hereditary Cancer Clinics Improve Adherence to NCCN Germline Testing Guidelines for Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a poor prognosis, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 10%. In November 2018, NCCN recommended that all patients with PDAC receive genetic counseling (GC) and germline testing regardless of family history. We hypothesized that patients with PDAC were more likely to be referred for testing after this change to the guidelines, regardless of presumed predictive factors, and that compliance would be further improved following the implementation of a hereditary cancer clinic (HCC). METHODS: We conducted a single-institution retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with PDAC from June 2017 through December 2021 at University of California, Irvine. We compared rates of genetics referral among patients in different diagnostic eras: the 18-month period before the NCCN Guideline change (pre-NCCN era: June 2017 through November 2018), 14 months following the change (post-NCCN era: December 2018 through January 2020), and 18 months after the creation of an HCC (HCC era: June 2020 through December 2021). Family and personal cancer history, genetics referral patterns, and results of GC were recorded. Data were compared using chi-square, Fisher exact, and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 335 patients were treated for PDAC (123 pre-NCCN, 109 post-NCCN, and 103 HCC) at University of California, Irvine. Demographics across groups were comparable. Prior to the guideline changes, 30% were referred to GC compared with 54.7% in the post-NCCN era. After the implementation of the HCC, 77.4% were referred to GC (P<.0001). The odds ratio (OR) for referral to GC among patients with a positive family history of cancer progressively decreased following the change (pre-NCCN era: OR, 11.90 [95% CI, 3.00-80.14]; post-NCCN era: OR, 3.39 [95% CI, 1.13-10.76]; HCC era: OR, 3.11 [95% CI, 0.95-10.16]). CONCLUSIONS: The 2018 updates to the NCCN Guidelines for PDAC recommending germline testing for all patients with PDAC significantly increased GC referral rates at our academic medical center. Implementation of an HCC further boosted compliance with guidelines.

Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer Genetic Testing May be Mitigated by Counseling.

BACKGROUND: Currently, racial disparities exist in access to genetic testing. Recent developments have helped narrow the gap in accessibility. The purpose of this study was to determine whether racial disparities in genetic consultation attendance and completion of genetic testing persist, and, if so, factors that contribute to under-utilization of these resources. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of breast patients referred for genetic counseling between 2017 and 2019 was performed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression evaluated factors associated with genetic counseling attendance and genetic testing. RESULTS: A total of 596 patients were referred for genetic counseling: 433 (72.7%) white; 138 (23.2%) black; and 25 (4.2%) other or unknown. In multivariate analysis, black patients, patients without breast cancer family history, and patients without a current cancer diagnosis, classified as high risk, were significantly less likely to attend their genetics appointment (p = 0.010, p = 0.007, p = 0.005, respectively). Age, insurance type, distance from facility, and need for chemotherapy did not significantly impact consult completion rate. Of the patients who completed a genetic consult, 84.4% (n = 248) had genetic testing and 17.7% (n = 44) had a pathogenic variant. For patients who attended counseling, there were no significant factors that were predictive with receipt of genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, there was a significant association between race and attending genetic counseling. Once counseled, most patients went on to receive genetic testing, and racial disparities in testing disappeared, emphasizing the value of providing additional education about the importance and purpose of genetic testing.

Predictors of germline genetic testing referral and completion in ovarian cancer patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of referral and completion of germline genetic testing among newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients, with a focus on geographic social deprivation, oncologist-level practices, and time between diagnosis and completion of testing. METHODS: Clinical and sociodemographic data were abstracted from medical records of patients newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2014 and 2019 in the University of North Carolina Health System. Factors associated with referral for genetic counseling, completion of germline testing, and time between diagnosis and test results were identified using multivariable regression. RESULTS: 307/459 (67%) patients were referred for genetic counseling and 285/459 (62%) completed testing. The predicted probability of test completion was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88) for patients with a referral compared to 0.27 (95% CI: 0.18-0.35) for patients without a referral. The predicted probability of referral was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69-0.82) for patients at the 25th percentile of ZIP code-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI) and 0.67 (0.60-0.74) for patients at the 75th percentile of SDI. Referral varied by oncologist, with predicted probabilities ranging from 0.47 (95% CI: 0.32-0.62) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00) across oncologists. The median time between diagnosis and test results was 137 days (IQR: 55-248 days). This interval decreased by a predicted 24.46 days per year (95% CI: 37.75-11.16). CONCLUSIONS: We report relatively high germline testing and a promising trend in time from diagnosis to results, with variation by oncologist and patient factors. Automated referral, remote genetic counseling and sample collection, reduced out-of-pocket costs, and educational interventions should be explored.

Rates of genetic consultation in high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients in the era of PARP inhibitor therapy: A population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends all patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSC) undergo germline genetic testing. Genetic consultation rates in Ontario, Canada, only reached 13.3% in 2011. In 2016, PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy became available in Ontario for BRCA-positive HGSC patients. Given expanding treatment options, we re-examined genetic consultation rates among HGSC patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients diagnosed with HGSC between 2012 and 2019 using population-based administrative data from Ontario. Genetics consultations were identified using Ontario Health Insurance Plan billing codes. Consultation rates over time were analyzed using Cochran-Armitage trend test and segmental regression analysis. Multivariable analysis identified factors associated with attending genetics consultation. RESULTS: This study included 4645 HGSC patients. The mean age was 64.2 years (±SD 12.3); 56.3% had stage 3-4 disease. Overall, approximately 35% attended genetics consultations. The genetic consultation rate per year increased significantly from 21.6% to 42.6% (P < 0.001). Shorter times between diagnosis and genetics consult were observed after PARP inhibitors became available (68.1 vs 34.1 weeks, P < 0.001). Patients treated at designated cancer centers (odds ratio [OR] 2.11, P < 0.001), diagnosed in later years (OR 1.33, P < 0.001), and from higher income groups (P < 0.05) were more likely to attend genetics consultation; older patients were less likely (OR 0.98, P < 0.001). After PARP inhibitors became available, consultation rates plateaued (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2012 and 2019, genetic consultation rates improved significantly among HGSC patients; however, a large proportion of patients never attended consultation. Further exploration of barriers to care is warranted to improve consultation rates and ensure equitable access to care.

Half of germline pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants found on panel tests do not fulfil NHS testing criteria.

Genetic testing for cancer predisposition has been curtailed by the cost of sequencing, and testing has been restricted by eligibility criteria. As the cost of sequencing decreases, the question of expanding multi-gene cancer panels to a broader population arises. We evaluated how many additional actionable genetic variants are returned by unrestricted panel testing in the private sector compared to those which would be returned by adhering to current NHS eligibility criteria. We reviewed 152 patients referred for multi-gene cancer panels in the private sector between 2014 and 2016. Genetic counselling and disclosure of all results was standard of care provided by the Consultant. Every panel conducted was compared to current eligibility criteria. A germline pathogenic / likely pathogenic variant (P/LP), in a gene relevant to the personal or family history of cancer, was detected in 15 patients (detection rate of 10%). 46.7% of those found to have the P/LP variants (7 of 15), or 4.6% of the entire set (7 of 152), did not fulfil NHS eligibility criteria. 46.7% of P/LP variants in this study would have been missed by national testing guidelines, all of which were actionable. However, patients who do not fulfil eligibility criteria have a higher Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) burden. We demonstrated that the current England NHS threshold for genetic testing is missing pathogenic variants which would alter management in 4.6%, nearly 1 in 20 individuals. However, the clinical service burden that would ensue is a detection of VUS of 34%.

Cascade screening for beta-thalassemia in Pakistan: development, feasibility and acceptability of a decision support intervention for relatives.

The government-funded 'Punjab Thalassaemia Prevention Project' (PTPP) in Pakistan includes cascade screening for biological relatives of children with beta-Thalassaemia Major (ß-TM). However, there is low uptake of cascade screening. This paper presents the (i) development of a paper-based 'decision support intervention for relatives' (DeSIRe) to enable PTPP Field Officers to facilitate informed decision making about carrier testing, and (ii) assessment of the feasibility and acceptability of the DeSIRe. The intervention was developed using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards quality criteria and Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Twelve focus groups were conducted (September and October 2020) to explore the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and relatives of children with ß-TM, in six cities. The focus groups were attended by 117 participants (60 HCPs and 57 relatives). Thematic analysis showed that the DeSIRe was considered acceptable for supporting relatives to make informed decisions about cascade screening, and potentially feasible for use in clinical practice. Suggestions for changing some words, the structure and adding information about how carrier testing relates to consanguineous marriages will enable further development of the DeSIRe. Participants generally welcomed the DeSIRe; however, they highlighted the perceived need to use more directive language, hence showed a cultural preference for directive genetic counselling. The findings highlight challenges for researchers using western theories, frameworks, policies and clinical guidelines to develop decision support interventions for implementation more globally. Future research is needed to evaluate the use of the DeSIRe in routine practice and whether it enables relatives to make informed decisions.

Risk management recommendations and patient acceptance vary with high-risk breast lesions.

INTRODUCTION: Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), atypical ductal and lobular hyperplasia (AH) increase breast cancer risk. We examined risk management recommendations (RMR) and acceptance in AH/LCIS. METHODS: All patients with AH/LCIS on core needle biopsy from 2013 to 2016 at our institution were identified; cancer patients were excluded. Univariate and multivariate analysis examined factors associated with management. RESULTS: 98 % of patients were evaluated by breast surgeons and 53 % underwent risk model calculation (RC). 77 % had new RMR. RMR of MRI screening (MRI), genetic counselling (GC) and medical oncology (MO) referral were 41 %, 18 %, 77 %, respectively. MRI screening was more likely recommended in those with strong family history (p = 0.01), and high RC (p < 0.001). Uptake of at least one RMR did not occur in 84 % of patients. Use of RC correlated with MO acceptance (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of atypia has the potential to change risk management for most, however only 16 % of patients accepted all RMR.

A single center experience with publicly funded clinical exome sequencing for neurodevelopmental disorders or multiple congenital anomalies.

Exome sequencing (ES) is an important diagnostic tool for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) and/or multiple congenital anomalies (MCA). However, the cost of ES limits the test's accessibility for many patients. We evaluated the yield of publicly funded clinical ES, performed at a tertiary center in Israel, over a 3-year period (2018-2020). Probands presented with (1) moderate-to-profound global developmental delay (GDD)/intellectual disability (ID); or (2) mild GDD/ID with epilepsy or congenital anomaly; and/or (3) MCA. Subjects with normal chromosomal microarray analysis who met inclusion criteria were included, totaling 280 consecutive cases. Trio ES (proband and parents) was the default option. In 252 cases (90.0%), indication of NDD was noted. Most probands were males (62.9%), and their mean age at ES submission was 9.3 years (range 1 month to 51 years). Molecular diagnosis was reached in 109 probands (38.9%), mainly due to de novo variants (91/109, 83.5%). Disease-causing variants were identified in 92 genes, 15 of which were implicated in more than a single case. Male sex, families with multiple-affected members and premature birth were significantly associated with lower ES yield (p < 0.05). Other factors, including MCA and coexistence of epilepsy, autism spectrum disorder, microcephaly or abnormal brain magnetic resonance imaging findings, were not associated with the yield. To conclude, our findings support the utility of clinical ES in a real-world setting, as part of a publicly funded genetic workup for individuals with GDD/ID and/or MCA.

Counseling for personal health implications identified during reproductive genetic carrier screening.

OBJECTIVE: Preconception and prenatal carrier screening is designed to provide reproductive risk information, but carriers for some autosomal recessive or X-linked conditions also have personal health risks. This study investigated the prevalence of and inclusion of personal health implications in pre- and post-test counseling. METHODS: Twelve genetic conditions with personal health risks for carriers included on carrier screening panels but not otherwise screened routinely were identified (e.g., Gaucher disease with Parkinson's disease risk). A retrospective review was performed of patients with a positive carrier screen for one of these conditions at our center from 2012 to 2019. RESULTS: Of 6147 individuals that had carrier screening for one of the twelve conditions, 96 (1.56%) did not report a known family history and screened positive for one of the conditions. Testing was ordered largely by reproductive endocrinologists (51.0%) and genetic counselors (35.4%). Most individuals did not receive pre- (96.8%) or post-test (64.6%) counseling about personal health risks. Post-test counseling was performed principally by genetic counselors (97.1%). For carriers of conditions with guidelines for specialist referral, most individuals (75.9%) were referred. CONCLUSION: Expanded genetic carrier screening increasingly identifies individuals with personal health implications, but patients are frequently not counseled before or after testing. These findings stress the importance of developing guidelines for practitioners about expanded carrier screening counseling and follow-up.

Impact of changing guidelines on genetic testing and surveillance recommendations in a contemporary cohort of breast cancer survivors with family history of pancreatic cancer.

Changing practice guidelines and recommendations have important implications for cancer survivors. This study investigated genetic testing patterns and outcomes and reported family history of pancreatic cancer (FHPC) in a large registry population of breast cancer (BC) patients. Variables including clinical and demographic characteristics, FHPC in a first or second-degree relative, and genetic testing outcomes were analyzed for BC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 in the NYU Langone Health Breast Cancer Database. Among 3334 BC patients, 232 (7%) had a positive FHPC. BC patients with FHPC were 1.68 times more likely to have undergone genetic testing (p < 0.001), but 33% had testing for BRCA1/2 only and 44% had no genetic testing. Pathogenic germline variants (PGV) were identified in 15/129 (11.6%) BC patients with FHPC, and in 145/1315 (11.0%) BC patients without FHPC. Across both groups, updates in genetic testing criteria and recommendations could impact up to 80% of this cohort. Within a contemporary cohort of BC patients, 7% had a positive FHPC. The majority of these patients (56%) had no genetic testing, or incomplete testing by current standards, suggesting under-diagnosis of PC risk. This study supports recommendations for survivorship care that incorporate ongoing genetic risk assessment and counseling.

Randomized study of remote telehealth genetic services versus usual care in oncology practices without genetic counselors.

PURPOSE: To examine the benefit of telehealth over current delivery options in oncology practices without genetic counselors. METHODS: Participants meeting cancer genetic testing guidelines were recruited to this multi-center, randomized trial comparing uptake of genetic services with remote services (telephone or videoconference) to usual care in six predominantly community practices without genetic counselors. The primary outcome was the composite uptake of genetic counseling or testing. Secondary outcomes compare telephone versus videoconference services. RESULTS: 147 participants enrolled and 119 were randomized. Eighty percent of participants in the telehealth arm had genetic services as compared to 16% in the usual care arm (OR 30.52, p < 0.001). Five genetic mutation carriers (6.7%) were identified in the telehealth arm, compared to none in the usual care arm. In secondary analyses, factors associated with uptake were lower anxiety (6.77 vs. 8.07, p = 0.04) and lower depression (3.38 vs. 5.06, p = 0.04) among those who had genetic services. There were no significant differences in change in cognitive or affective outcomes immediately post-counseling and at 6 and 12 months between telephone and videoconference arms. CONCLUSION: Telehealth increases uptake of genetic counseling and testing at oncology practices without genetic counselors and could significantly improve identification of genetic carriers and cancer prevention outcomes.

Identification of women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in a sample of 1000 Slovenian women: a comparison of guidelines.

BACKGROUND: An important number of breast and ovarian cancer cases is due to a strong genetic predisposition. The main tool for identifying individuals at risk is recognizing a suggestive family history of cancer. We present a prospective study on applying three selected clinical guidelines to a cohort of 1000 Slovenian women to determine the prevalence of at-risk women according to each of the guidelines and analyze the differences amongst the guidelines. METHODS: Personal and family history of cancer was collected for 1000 Slovenian women. Guidelines by three organizations: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American College of Medical Genetics in cooperation with National Society of Genetic Counselors (ACMG/NSGC), and Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) were applied to the cohort. The number of women identified, the characteristics of the high-risk population, and the agreement between the guidelines were explored. RESULTS: NCCN guidelines identify 13.2% of women, ACMG/NSGC guidelines identify 7.1% of women, and SGO guidelines identify 7.0% of women from the Slovenian population, while 6.2% of women are identified by all three guidelines as having high-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 13.7% of women from the Slovenian population as being at an increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer based on their personal and family history of cancer using all of the guidelines. There are important differences between the guidelines. NCCN guidelines are the most inclusive, identifying nearly twice the amount of women as high-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer as compared to the AGMG/NSCG and SGO guidelines in the Slovenian population.

Health system interventions to integrate genetic testing in routine oncology services: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Integration of genetic testing into routine oncology care could improve access to testing. This systematic review investigated interventions and the tailored implementation strategies aimed at increasing access to genetic counselling and testing and identifying hereditary cancer in oncology. METHODS: The search strategy results were reported using the PRISMA statement and four electronic databases were searched. Eligible studies included routine genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer or uptake after universal tumour screening for colorectal or endometrial cancer. The titles and abstracts were reviewed and the full text articles screened for eligibility. Data extraction was preformed using a designed template and study appraisal was assessed using an adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Extracted data were mapped to Proctor's et al outcomes and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and qualitatively synthesised. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies, published up to May 2020, met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies ranged from poor (72%), fair to good (28%) quality. Most interventions identified were complex (multiple components) such as; patient or health professional education, interdisciplinary practice and a documentation or system change. Forty-eight percent of studies with complex interventions demonstrated on average a 35% increase in access to genetic counselling and a 15% increase in testing completion. Mapping of study outcomes showed that 70% and 32% of the studies aligned with either the service and client or the implementation level outcome and 96% to the process or inner setting domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. CONCLUSION: Existing evidence suggests that complex interventions have a potentially positive effect towards genetic counselling and testing completion rates in oncology services. Studies of sound methodological quality that explore a greater breadth of pre and post implementation outcomes and informed by theory are needed. Such research could inform future service delivery models for the integration of genetics into oncology services.

Achieving universal genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer: Are we there yet? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services. METHODS: We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]). CONCLUSIONS: Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.

Barriers and facilitators of germline genetic evaluation for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling and germline testing have an increasingly important role for patients with prostate cancer (PCa); however, recent data suggests they are underutilized. Our objective was to perform a qualitative study of the barriers and facilitators of germline genetic evaluation among physicians who manage PCa. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and urologists from different U.S. practice settings until thematic saturation was achieved at n = 14. The interview guide was based on the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases Framework to identify key determinants of practice. Interview transcripts were independently coded by ≥2 investigators using a constant comparative method. RESULTS: The decision to perform or refer for germline genetic evaluation is affected by factors at multiple levels. Although patient factors sometimes play a role, the dominant themes in the decision to conduct germline genetic evaluation were at the physician and organizational level. Physician knowledge, coordination of care, perceptions of the guidelines, and concerns about cost were most frequently discussed as the main factors affecting utilization of germline genetic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently numerous barriers to implementation of germline genetic evaluation for PCa. Efforts to expand physician education, to develop tools to enhance genetics in practice, and to facilitate coordination of care surrounding genetic evaluation are important to promote guideline-concordant care.

Outcomes of large panel genetic evaluation of breast cancer patients in a community-based cancer institute.

INTRODUCTION: The use of restricted versus expanded panel genetic testing in breast cancer is controversial, with some institutions offering predominantly abbreviated gene panel testing. Our community program has offered larger panel testing for several years. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of large panel genetic testing and understand their impact on patient care. METHODS: A retrospective review of our multi-institutional tumor registry was performed from 2015 to 2018 for patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer. Referral to genetic counseling and outcomes of panel testing were examined. RESULTS: 2237 patients met study criteria. Median age was 63 years (range 22-99). Eight hundred and thirty-eight patients (37.4%) were referred for genetic counseling. Of these patients, 509 (60.7%) had negative results, 108 (12.8%) had deleterious mutations (37 not included in abbreviated panels), and 221 (26.3%) had variants of undetermined significance (VUS). Bilateral mastectomy rates for patients with deleterious mutations were 53.7%, versus 31% for negative and 32.6% for VUS. DISCUSSION: Large panel testing finds a significant number of actionable mutations. The increased identification of VUS did not result in higher mastectomy rates.

Clinically Actionable Findings Derived From Predictive Genomic Testing Offered in a Medical Practice Setting.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the presence of clinically actionable results and other genetic findings in an otherwise healthy population of adults seen in a medical practice setting and offered "predictive" genomic testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 2014, a predictive genomics clinic for generally healthy adults was launched through the Mayo Clinic Executive Health Program. Self-identified interested patients met with a genomic nurse and genetic counselor for pretest advice and education. Two genome sequencing platforms and one gene panel-based health screen were offered. Posttest genetic counseling was available for patients who elected testing. From March 1, 2014, through June 1, 2019, 1281 patients were seen and 301 (23.5%) chose testing. Uptake rates increased to 36.3% [70 of 193]) in 2019 from 11.8% [2 of 17] in 2014. Clinically actionable results and genetic findings were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Clinically actionable results were detected in 11.6% of patients (35 of 301), and of those, 51.7% (15 of 29) with a cancer or cardiovascular result = did not have a personal or family history concerning for a hereditary disorder. The most common actionable results were in the BCHE, BRCA2, CHEK2, LDLR, MUTYH, and MYH7 genes. A carrier of at least one recessive condition was found in 53.8% of patients (162 of 301). At least one variant associated with multifactorial disease was found in 44.5% (134 of 301) (eg, 25 patients were heterozygous for the F5 factor V Leiden variant associated with thrombophilia risk). CONCLUSION: Our predictive screening revealed that 11.6% of individuals will test positive for a clinically actionable, likely pathogenic/pathogenic variant. This finding suggests that wider knowledge and adoption of predictive genomic services could be beneficial in medical practice, although additional studies are needed.

Mainstream genetic testing for breast cancer patients: early experiences from the Parkville Familial Cancer Centre.

The demand for genetic testing of hereditary breast cancer genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 has continued to increase with the lowering costs of testing, raised awareness in the general public, and implications for breast cancer treatment when a patient is identified as having a germline pathogenic variant. Historically within Australia, patients affected by high genetic risk breast cancers have been referred to a familial cancer centre (FCC) for assessment and testing, resulting in wait times for an appointment for pre- and post-test genetic counselling and an increased demand on the public-funded FCC. To improve patient access and pace of genetic testing, as well as refocus FCC resources, a mainstream clinical genetic testing program was rolled out in September 2017 through the Parkville FCC (PFCC) in Australia at 10 hospital sites. This program enables specialist doctors of eligible patients affected by breast cancer to arrange genetic testing directly at an oncology/surgical appointment and follow up the results as part of the patients' routine clinical care. In this model, the specialist doctor is responsible for any treatment implications of the genetic test result, and the PFCC is responsible for result interpretation, future cancer risk, family cascade testing and segregation testing where warranted. To date the program has had successful uptake, a notable pathogenic variant detection rate, reduced the burden on the PFCC enabling a reallocation of resources and has streamlined the process of genetic testing for eligible patients. Investigation into the patient and clinician experiences of the mainstream program is required.

[The lag of genetic counseling in Mexico]. / El rezago del asesoramiento genético en México.

Genetic counseling is the process of advising indivduals, partners and families affected by or at risk of genetic disorders to help them understand and adapt to the medical, psychological, social, family and reproductive implications of a genetic condition. Given the expansion of precision medicine and the recent increase in the use of molecular diagnostic tests, it is necessary to have duly certified personnel in our environment to perform it. In Mexico, unlike other countries, the figure of the genetic counselor is not formally recognized, which is why geneticists doctors give this advice within the healthcare context (as part of the outpatient consultation). The number of these health professionals is below the internationally proposed requirement standard of one medical geneticist per 100,000 inhabitants, which is only met in Mexico City, making it of utmost importance to increase the training of medical geneticists as well such as the inclusion of these in the different health institutions of the country.

El asesoramiento genético es el proceso de comunicación que tiene como objetivo ayudar al individuo, la pareja o la familia a comprender y adaptarse a las implicaciones médicas, psicológicas, sociales, familiares y reproductivas de una condición genética. Dada la expansión de la medicina de precisión y el reciente incremento del uso de pruebas diagnósticas moleculares, es necesario contar en nuestro medio con personal debidamente certificado para realizarlo. En México, a diferencia de otros países, la figura del asesor en genética no está formalmente reconocida; por lo que médicos genetistas otorgan este asesoramiento dentro del contexto asistencial (formando parte de la consulta externa). El número de estos profesionales de la salud está por debajo del estándar de requerimiento propuesto internacionalmente, de un genetista por cada 100,000 habitantes, el cual únicamente se cumple en la Ciudad de México, por lo que resulta de suma importancia incrementar la formación de médicos genetistas, así como la inclusión de estos en las distintas instituciones de salud del país.