Newborn Screening for Li-Fraumeni Syndrome: Patient Perspectives.

Background: Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome with an estimated prevalence of 1 in 3,000-5,000 individuals. LFS poses a significant cancer risk throughout the lifespan, with notable cancer susceptibility in childhood. Despite being predominantly inherited, up to 20% of cases arise de novo. Surveillance protocols facilitate the reduction of mortality and morbidity through early cancer detection. While newborn screening (NBS) has proven effective in identifying newborns with rare genetic conditions, even those occurring as rarely as 1 in 185,000, its potential for detecting inherited cancer predispositions remains largely unexplored. Methods: This survey-based study investigates perspectives toward NBS for LFS among individuals with and parents of children with LFS receiving care at single comprehensive cancer center in the U.S. Results: All participants unanimously supported NBS for LFS (n = 24). Reasons included empowerment (83.3%), control (66.7%), and peace of mind (54.2%), albeit with concerns about anxiety (62.5%) and devastation (50%) related to receiving positive results. Participants endorsed NBS as beneficial for cancer detection and prevention (91.7%), research efforts (87.5%), and family planning (79.2%) but voiced apprehensions about the financial cost of cancer surveillance (62.5%), emotional burdens (62.5%), and insurance coverage and discrimination (54.2%). Approximately 83% of respondents believed that parental consent should be required to screen newborns for LFS. Conclusion: This study revealed strong support for NBS for LFS despite the recognition of various perceived benefits and risks. These findings underscore the complex interplay between clinical, psychosocial, and ethical factors in considering NBS for LFS from the perspective of the LFS community.

Applying the practice-based competencies to evaluate and characterize the contracting process within genetic counseling sessions.

Contracting is a skill used by genetic counselors (GCs) to establish a shared vision for the session. Ensuring that patients and GCs are aligned on expectations for the encounter allows GCs to meet patient needs and support patient autonomy. Although contracting is described in the practice-based competencies (PBCs), the process has not been systematically observed in practice. We sought to further elucidate the skills used for contracting within genetic counseling sessions through directed content analysis of transcripts from 148 simulated prenatal and cancer genetic counseling sessions. An a priori codebook and rating scale were developed based on four contracting sample skills described in the PBCs: (a) describing the genetic counseling process, (b) eliciting client concerns, (c) applying client concerns to a session agenda, (d) modifying the agenda in response to emerging concerns. The rating scale described the quality of each skill on a 4-point scale of "absent," "minimal," "adequate," and "excellent." The codebook and rating scale were pilot tested with 40% of transcripts (n = 60). Three authors independently coded and rated the final 60% of transcripts (n = 88), resolving discrepancies via a consensus process. We found that the four PBC skills were present in most sessions (88%-98%), and on average, GCs received "adequate" scores on all four skills. We also identified three additional components of contracting not described in the PBCs: assessing whether client concerns were met, inviting to interrupt, and providing opportunity for partner concerns. This study represents the first attempt to evaluate GC performance of a PBC during a genetic counseling session. Our findings demonstrate that the PBC sample contracting skills reflect practice and suggest that they can be used in assessment of the genetic counseling contracting process. This type of analysis could be adapted in the future to provide support for other standards of practice in the genetic counseling field.

Communication About Negative and Uncertain Results: Interactional Dilemmas During a Genetic Telehealth Consult.

This case study focuses on a video telehealth consult to discuss genetic testing results. Participants include a Genetic Counselor (GC) and a Patient (P) previously diagnosed with ovarian cancer who is currently undergoing chemotherapy treatments. Utilizing conversation analysis (CA), attention is first given to a series of interactional dilemmas as GC delivers and P responds to negative, uncertain, and complex test results. Specific findings address practices employed by GC to structure the encounter and establish authority, impacts on P's participation and understandings, recurring and at times problematic orientations to "negative" findings, and inherent ambiguities faced by GC and P when attempting to discern good and bad news. Close examination of these moments provides a unique opportunity to identify, describe, and explain genetic counseling as a co-produced, interactional achievement. These findings are then integrated with patient's post-counseling survey (susceptibility, anxiety, uncertainty, fear, and hope), including reported experiences which broaden understandings of the interactional environment. Specific recommendations are raised for improving counseling skills, enhancing patients' understandings, and building therapeutic alliances addressing both patients' emotional circumstances and the complexities of genetic test results.

BRCA1/2 Variants Identified Through Tumor Genomic Profiling: Assessing Genetic Counseling Outcomes.

PURPOSE: As tumor genomic profiling (TGP) is increasingly used to help guide cancer treatment, BRCA variants, which may or may not be reflective of the germline genome, are being identified. As TGP use increases, it is becoming an important tool for referral to genetic counseling and identifying patients with hereditary cancer syndromes such as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. This study explores genetic counseling referral patterns and germline implications of patients found to have pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants identified through TGP. METHODS: Participants include patients at Huntsman Cancer Institute undergoing TGP through a single commercial laboratory between March 2014 and July 2018. A retrospective chart review was conducted for 62 patients found to have pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1/2 on TGP. Data on genetic counseling referrals and uptake, germline test results, family history, and patient demographics were collected. RESULTS: In the study time frame, 1,899 patients underwent TGP. Testing identified 67 PVs in BRCA1 (23 variants) or BRCA2 (44 variants) in 62 patients. Thirty-five patients first received a referral to a genetic counselor following TGP with 33 patients completing genetic counseling. Of the 30 patients who pursued germline genetic testing following TGP, 11 were discovered to have a previously unknown germline BRCA PV. Nine of these patients were the first in their family diagnosed with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. CONCLUSION: This study represents one institution's experience with genetic counseling referrals, uptake, and germline results following TGP. For some patients, TGP will be the first indicator of an underlying hereditary condition. Identifying patients with PVs (which may be germline) through TGP is an important new genetic counseling referral tool that can have important implications for the patient and their family.

Association of Disparities in Family History and Family Cancer History in the Electronic Health Record With Sex, Race, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, and Language Preference in 2 Large US Health Care Systems.

Importance: Clinical decision support (CDS) algorithms are increasingly being implemented in health care systems to identify patients for specialty care. However, systematic differences in missingness of electronic health record (EHR) data may lead to disparities in identification by CDS algorithms. Objective: To examine the availability and comprehensiveness of cancer family history information (FHI) in patients' EHRs by sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and language preference in 2 large health care systems in 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective EHR quality improvement study used EHR data from 2 health care systems: University of Utah Health (UHealth) and NYU Langone Health (NYULH). Participants included patients aged 25 to 60 years who had a primary care appointment in the previous 3 years. Data were collected or abstracted from the EHR from December 10, 2020, to October 31, 2021, and analyzed from June 15 to October 31, 2021. Exposures: Prior collection of cancer FHI in primary care settings. Main Outcomes and Measures: Availability was defined as having any FHI and any cancer FHI in the EHR and was examined at the patient level. Comprehensiveness was defined as whether a cancer family history observation in the EHR specified the type of cancer diagnosed in a family member, the relationship of the family member to the patient, and the age at onset for the family member and was examined at the observation level. Results: Among 144 484 patients in the UHealth system, 53.6% were women; 74.4% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino and 67.6% were White; and 83.0% had an English language preference. Among 377 621 patients in the NYULH system, 55.3% were women; 63.2% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino, and 55.3% were White; and 89.9% had an English language preference. Patients from historically medically undeserved groups-specifically, Black vs White patients (UHealth: 17.3% [95% CI, 16.1%-18.6%] vs 42.8% [95% CI, 42.5%-43.1%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.0%-24.8%] vs 33.8% [95% CI, 33.6%-34.0%]), Hispanic or Latino vs non-Hispanic or non-Latino patients (UHealth: 27.2% [95% CI, 26.5%-27.8%] vs 40.2% [95% CI, 39.9%-40.5%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.1%-24.7%] vs 31.6% [95% CI, 31.4%-31.8%]), Spanish-speaking vs English-speaking patients (UHealth: 18.4% [95% CI, 17.2%-19.1%] vs 40.0% [95% CI, 39.7%-40.3%]; NYULH: 15.1% [95% CI, 14.6%-15.6%] vs 31.1% [95% CI, 30.9%-31.2%), and men vs women (UHealth: 30.8% [95% CI, 30.4%-31.2%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 42.6%-43.3%]; NYULH: 23.1% [95% CI, 22.9%-23.3%] vs 34.9% [95% CI, 34.7%-35.1%])-had significantly lower availability and comprehensiveness of cancer FHI (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that systematic differences in the availability and comprehensiveness of FHI in the EHR may introduce informative presence bias as inputs to CDS algorithms. The observed differences may also exacerbate disparities for medically underserved groups. System-, clinician-, and patient-level efforts are needed to improve the collection of FHI.

Non-Melanoma Skin Cancers and Other Cutaneous Manifestations in Bone Marrow Failure Syndromes and Rare DNA Repair Disorders.

Although most non-melanoma skin cancers are felt to be sporadic in origin, these tumors do play a role in several cancer predisposition syndromes. The manifestations of skin cancers in these hereditary populations can include diagnosis at extremely early ages and/or multiple primary cancers, as well as tumors at less common sites. Awareness of baseline skin cancer risks for these individuals is important, particularly in the setting of treatments that may compromise the immune system and further increase risk of cutaneous malignancies. Additionally, diagnosis of these disorders and management of non-cutaneous manifestations of these diseases have profound implications for both the patient and their family. This review highlights the current literature on the diagnosis, features, and non-melanoma skin cancer risks associated with lesser-known cancer predisposition syndromes, including bone marrow failure disorders, genomic instability disorders, and base excision repair disorders.

Patient Interactions With an Automated Conversational Agent Delivering Pretest Genetics Education: Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer genetic testing to assess an individual's cancer risk and to enable genomics-informed cancer treatment has grown exponentially in the past decade. Because of this continued growth and a shortage of health care workers, there is a need for automated strategies that provide high-quality genetics services to patients to reduce the clinical demand for genetics providers. Conversational agents have shown promise in managing mental health, pain, and other chronic conditions and are increasingly being used in cancer genetic services. However, research on how patients interact with these agents to satisfy their information needs is limited. OBJECTIVE: Our primary aim is to assess user interactions with a conversational agent for pretest genetics education. METHODS: We conducted a feasibility study of user interactions with a conversational agent who delivers pretest genetics education to primary care patients without cancer who are eligible for cancer genetic evaluation. The conversational agent provided scripted content similar to that delivered in a pretest genetic counseling visit for cancer genetic testing. Outside of a core set of information delivered to all patients, users were able to navigate within the chat to request additional content in their areas of interest. An artificial intelligence-based preprogrammed library was also established to allow users to ask open-ended questions to the conversational agent. Transcripts of the interactions were recorded. Here, we describe the information selected, time spent to complete the chat, and use of the open-ended question feature. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative measures, and thematic analyses were used for qualitative responses. RESULTS: We invited 103 patients to participate, of which 88.3% (91/103) were offered access to the conversational agent, 39% (36/91) started the chat, and 32% (30/91) completed the chat. Most users who completed the chat indicated that they wanted to continue with genetic testing (21/30, 70%), few were unsure (9/30, 30%), and no patient declined to move forward with testing. Those who decided to test spent an average of 10 (SD 2.57) minutes on the chat, selected an average of 1.87 (SD 1.2) additional pieces of information, and generally did not ask open-ended questions. Those who were unsure spent 4 more minutes on average (mean 14.1, SD 7.41; P=.03) on the chat, selected an average of 3.67 (SD 2.9) additional pieces of information, and asked at least one open-ended question. CONCLUSIONS: The pretest chat provided enough information for most patients to decide on cancer genetic testing, as indicated by the small number of open-ended questions. A subset of participants were still unsure about receiving genetic testing and may require additional education or interpersonal support before making a testing decision. Conversational agents have the potential to become a scalable alternative for pretest genetics education, reducing the clinical demand on genetics providers.

Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Advances in genetics and sequencing technologies are enabling the identification of more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility who could benefit from tailored screening and prevention recommendations. While cancer family history information is used in primary care settings to identify unaffected patients who could benefit from a cancer genetics evaluation, this information is underutilized. System-level population health management strategies are needed to assist health care systems in identifying patients who may benefit from genetic services. In addition, because of the limited number of trained genetics specialists and increasing patient volume, the development of innovative and sustainable approaches to delivering cancer genetic services is essential. METHODS: We are conducting a randomized controlled trial, entitled Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services (BRIDGE), to address these needs. The trial is comparing uptake of genetic counseling, uptake of genetic testing, and patient adherence to management recommendations for automated, patient-directed versus enhanced standard of care cancer genetics services delivery models. An algorithm-based system that utilizes structured cancer family history data available in the electronic health record (EHR) is used to identify unaffected patients who receive primary care at the study sites and meet current guidelines for cancer genetic testing. We are enrolling eligible patients at two healthcare systems (University of Utah Health and New York University Langone Health) through outreach to a randomly selected sample of 2780 eligible patients in the two sites, with 1:1 randomization to the genetic services delivery arms within sites. Study outcomes are assessed through genetics clinic records, EHR, and two follow-up questionnaires at 4 weeks and 12 months after last genetic counseling contactpre-test genetic counseling. DISCUSSION: BRIDGE is being conducted in two healthcare systems with different clinical structures and patient populations. Innovative aspects of the trial include a randomized comparison of a chatbot-based genetic services delivery model to standard of care, as well as identification of at-risk individuals through a sustainable EHR-based system. The findings from the BRIDGE trial will advance the state of the science in identification of unaffected patients with inherited cancer susceptibility and delivery of genetic services to those patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: BRIDGE is registered as NCT03985852 . The trial was registered on June 6, 2019 at clinicaltrials.gov .

Researcher Knowledge, Attitudes, and Communication Practices for Genomic Data Sharing.

This study examines knowledge, attitudes, and communication practices toward genomic data sharing among principal investigators and research coordinators engaged in cancer and non-cancer studies. We conducted 25 individual semi-structured interviews and conducted a qualitative thematic analysis. Most interviewees had basic knowledge of data sharing requirements, but lacked specific details of recent changes to NIH policy. Principal investigators perceived more risks to participants for data sharing than the research coordinators who generally obtained consent. Interviewees perceived a trend toward providing fewer data sharing options to participants in the consent process, and had observed that parents of pediatric patients asked more questions than adult patients. Our findings highlight potential areas for improvement related to data sharing during consent processes.

Population prevalence of individuals meeting criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer testing.

BACKGROUND: Personal cancer diagnosis and family cancer history factor into which individuals should undergo genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome. Family history is often determined in the research setting through kindreds with disease clusters, or clinically from self-report. The population prevalence of individuals with diagnostic characteristics and/or family cancer history meeting criteria for HBOC testing is unknown. METHODS: Utilizing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry data and a research resource linking registry records to genealogies, the Utah Population Database, the population-based prevalence of diagnostic and family history characteristics meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for HBOC testing was objectively assessed. RESULTS: Among Utah residents with an incident breast cancer diagnosis 2010-2015 and evaluable for family history, 21.6% met criteria for testing based on diagnostic characteristics, but the proportion increased to 62.9% when family history was evaluated. The proportion of cases meeting testing criteria at diagnosis was 94% for ovarian cancer, 23% for prostate cancer, and 51.1% for pancreatic cancer. Among an unaffected Utah population of approximately 1.7 million evaluable for family history, 197,601 or 11.6% met testing criteria based on family history. CONCLUSIONS: This study quantifies the population-based prevalence of HBOC criteria using objectively determined genealogy and cancer incidence data. Sporadic breast cancer likely represents a portion of the high prevalence of family cancer history seen in this study. These results underline the importance of establishing presence of a deleterious mutation in an affected family member, per NCCN guidelines, before testing unaffected relatives.

Female family members lack understanding of indeterminate negative BRCA1/2 test results shared by probands.

Genetic test results have important implications for close family members. Indeterminate negative results are the most common outcome of BRCA1/2 mutation testing. Little is known about family members' understanding of indeterminate negative BRCA1/2 test results. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to investigate how daughters and sisters received and understood genetic test results as shared by their mothers or sisters. Participants included 81 women aged 40-74 with mothers or sisters previously diagnosed with breast cancer and who received indeterminate negative BRCA1/2 test results. Participants had never been diagnosed with breast cancer nor received their own genetic testing or counseling. This Institutional Review Board-approved study utilized semi-structured interviews and surveys. Descriptive coding with theme development was used during qualitative analysis. Participants reported low amounts of information shared with them. Most women described test results as negative and incorrectly interpreted the test to mean there was no genetic component to the pattern of cancer in their families. Only seven of 81 women accurately described test results consistent with the meaning of an indeterminate negative. Our findings demonstrate that indeterminate negative genetic test results are not well understood by family members. Lack of understanding may lead to an inability to effectively communicate results to primary care providers and missed opportunities for prevention, screening, and further genetic testing. Future research should evaluate acceptability and feasibility of providing family members letters they can share with their own primary care providers.

Comparison of Somatic and Germline Variant Interpretation in Hereditary Cancer Genes.

PURPOSE: To compare the classification of genetic variants reported on tumor genomic profiling (TGP) reports with germline classifications on clinical test results and ClinVar. Results will help to inform germline testing discussions and decisions in patients with tumor variants in genes that are relevant to hereditary cancer risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study compared somatic and germline classifications of small nucleotide variants in the following genes: BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, ATM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. Somatic classifications were taken from reports from a single commercial TGP laboratory of tests ordered by providers at Huntsman Cancer Institute between March 2014 and June 2018. Somatic variant interpretations were compared with classifications from germline test results as well as with ClinVar interpretations. RESULTS: Of the 623 variants identified on TGP, 353 had a definitive classification in ClinVar, and 103 were assayed with a germline test, with 66 of the variants tested observed in germline. Analysis of somatic variants of uncertain significance listed on TGP reports determined that 22% had a different interpretation compared with ClinVar and that 32% differed from the interpretation on a germline test result. Pathogenic variants on TGP test results were found to differ 13% and 5% of the time compared with ClinVar interpretations and germline test results, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that TGP variants are often classified differently in a germline context. Differences may be due to different processes in variant interpretation between somatic and germline laboratories. These results are important for health care providers to consider when making decisions about additional testing for hereditary cancer risks.

Pancreatic cancer as a sentinel for hereditary cancer predisposition.

BACKGROUND: Genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) predisposition have been shown to play a role in pancreatic cancer susceptibility. Growing evidence suggests that pancreatic cancer may be useful as a sentinel cancer to identify families that could benefit from HBOC or CRC surveillance, but to date pancreatic cancer is only considered an indication for genetic testing in the context of additional family history. METHODS: Preliminary data generated at the Huntsman Cancer Hospital (HCH) included variants identified on a custom 34-gene panel or 59-gene panel including both known HBOC and CRC genes for respective sets of 66 and 147 pancreatic cancer cases, unselected for family history. Given the strength of preliminary data and corresponding literature, 61 sequential pancreatic cancer cases underwent a custom 14-gene clinical panel. Sequencing data from HCH pancreatic cancer cases, pancreatic cancer cases of the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), and an unselected pancreatic cancer screen from the Mayo Clinic were combined in a meta-analysis to estimate the proportion of carriers with pathogenic and high probability of pathogenic variants of uncertain significance (HiP-VUS). RESULTS: Approximately 8.6% of unselected pancreatic cancer cases at the HCH carried a variant with potential HBOC or CRC screening recommendations. A meta-analysis of unselected pancreatic cancer cases revealed that approximately 11.5% carry a pathogenic variant or HiP-VUS. CONCLUSION: With the inclusion of both HBOC and CRC susceptibility genes in a panel test, unselected pancreatic cancer cases act as a useful sentinel cancer to identify asymptomatic at-risk relatives who could benefit from relevant HBOC and CRC surveillance measures.

Genetic Testing in a Population-Based Sample of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Survivors from the REACH Randomized Trial: Cost Barriers and Moderators of Counseling Mode.

Background: This study evaluates predictors of BRCA1/2 testing among breast and ovarian cancer survivors who received genetic counseling as part of a randomized trial and evaluates moderators of counseling mode on testing uptake.Methods: Predictors of BRCA1/2 testing within one year postcounseling were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression in a population-based sample of breast and ovarian cancer survivors at increased hereditary risk randomly assigned to in-person counseling (IPC; n = 379) versus telephone counseling (TC; n = 402). Variables that moderated the association between counseling mode and testing were identified by subgroup analysis.Results: Testing uptake was associated with higher perceived comparative mutation risk [OR = 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.57] in the adjusted analysis. Those without cost barriers had higher testing uptake (OR = 18.73; 95% CI, 7.09-49.46). Psychologic distress and perceived comparative mutation risk moderated the effect of counseling and testing. Uptake between IPC versus TC did not differ at low levels of distress and risk, but differed at high distress (26.3% TC vs. 44.3% IPC) and high perceived comparative risk (33.9% TC vs. 50.5% IPC).Conclusions: Cost concerns are a strong determinant of testing. Differences in testing uptake by counseling mode may depend on precounseling distress and risk perceptions.Impact: Cost concerns may contribute to low testing in population-based samples of at-risk cancer survivors. Precounseling psychosocial characteristics should be considered when offering in-person versus telephone counseling. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(12); 1772-80. ©2017 AACR.

A study of over 35,000 women with breast cancer tested with a 25-gene panel of hereditary cancer genes.

BACKGROUND: As panel testing becomes more common in clinical practice, it is important to understand the prevalence and trends associated with the pathogenic variants (PVs) identified. This is especially true for genetically heterogeneous cancers, such as breast cancer (BC), in which PVs in different genes may be associated with various risks and cancer subtypes. The authors evaluated the outcomes of genetic testing among women who had a personal history of BC. METHODS: A total of 35,409 women with a single diagnosis of BC who underwent clinical genetic testing with a 25-gene panel were included in the current analysis. Women with multiple BCs and men with BC were excluded. The frequency and distribution of PVs were assessed for the overall cohort, among women with triple-negative BC (TNBC) (n = 4797), and by age at diagnosis. RESULTS: PVs were identified in 9.3% of women tested; 51.5% of PVs were identified in genes other than breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) and BRCA2, including checkpoint kinase 2 (CHEK2) (11.7%), ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM; ATM serine/threonine kinase) (9.7%), and partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) (9.3%). The prevalence of PVs in BRCA1, PALB2, BRCA1-associated RING domain 1 (BARD1), BRCA1-interacting protein C-terminal helicase 1 (BRIP1), and RAD51 paralog C (RAD51C) was statistically higher among women with TNBC. The PV rate was higher among women aged <40 years, lower among women aged >59 years, and relatively constant (8.5%-9.0%) among women who were diagnosed between ages 40 and 59 years. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that panel testing increased the number of women identified as carrying a PV in this cohort compared with BRCA testing alone. Furthermore, the proportion of women identified who carried a PV in this cohort did not decrease between ages 40 and 59 years. Cancer 2017;123:1721-1730. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Rare hereditary cause of chronic pancreatitis in a young male: SPINK1 mutation.

Hereditary chronic pancreatitis associated with a mutation in the serine protease inhibitor, Kazal Type-1 (SPINK-1 gene) is extremely rare. The SPINK1 mutation results in trypsinogen activation which predisposes to chronic pancreatitis predominately when combined with CFTR gene mutations. It presents as either chronic or recurrent acute pancreatitis. Symptom control and management of complications is important. Active surveillance with cross-sectional imaging for pancreatic malignancy in individuals with hereditary pancreatitis is advocated due to individuals being high risk. We present an unusual case of a young male who initially presented with renal colic and was incidentally diagnosed with severe chronic pancreatitis on abdominal imaging, with genetic testing confirming a homozygous SPINK1 mutation.

Factors Associated with Interest in Gene-Panel Testing and Risk Communication Preferences in Women from BRCA1/2 Negative Families.

Scientific advances have allowed the development of multiplex gene-panels to assess many genes simultaneously in women who have tested negative for BRCA1/2. We examined correlates of interest in testing for genes that confer modest and moderate breast cancer risk and risk communication preferences for women from BRCA negative families. Female first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients who tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations (N = 149) completed a survey assessing multiplex genetic testing interest and risk communication preferences. Interest in testing was high (70 %) and even higher if results could guide risk-reducing behavior changes such as taking medications (79 %). Participants preferred to receive genomic risk communications from a variety of sources including: primary care physicians (83 %), genetic counselors (78 %), printed materials (71 %) and the web (60 %). Factors that were independently associated with testing interest were: perceived lifetime risk of developing cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 1.67: 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.06-2.65) and high cancer worry (OR = 3.12: CI 1.28-7.60). Findings suggest that women from BRCA1/2 negative families are a unique population and may be primed for behavior change. Findings also provide guidance for clinicians who can help develop genomic risk communications, promote informed decision making and customize behavioral interventions.

Genetic basis of Cowden syndrome and its implications for clinical practice and risk management.

Cowden syndrome (CS) is an often difficult to recognize hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome caused by mutations in phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome 10 (PTEN). In addition to conferring increased cancer risks, CS also predisposes individuals to developing hamartomatous growths in many areas of the body. Due to the rarity of CS, estimates vary on the penetrance of certain phenotypic features, such as macrocephaly and skin findings (trichilemmomas, mucocutaneous papules), as well as the conferred lifetime cancer risks. To address this variability, separate clinical diagnostic criteria and PTEN testing guidelines have been created to assist clinicians in the diagnosis of CS. As knowledge of CS increases, making larger studies of affected patients possible, these criteria continue to be refined. Similarly, the management guidelines for cancer screening and risk reduction in patients with CS continue to be updated. This review will summarize the current literature on CS to assist clinicians in staying abreast of recent advances in CS knowledge, diagnostic approaches, and management.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone Delivery of BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling Compared With In-Person Counseling: 1-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: The ongoing integration of cancer genomic testing into routine clinical care has led to increased demand for cancer genetic services. To meet this demand, there is an urgent need to enhance the accessibility and reach of such services, while ensuring comparable care delivery outcomes. This randomized trial compared 1-year outcomes for telephone genetic counseling with in-person counseling among women at risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer living in geographically diverse areas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using population-based sampling, women at increased risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to in-person (n = 495) or telephone genetic counseling (n = 493). One-sided 97.5% CIs were used to estimate the noninferiority effects of telephone counseling on 1-year psychosocial, decision-making, and quality-of-life outcomes. Differences in test-uptake proportions for determining equivalency of a 10% prespecified margin were evaluated by 95% CIs. RESULTS: At the 1-year follow-up, telephone counseling was noninferior to in-person counseling for all psychosocial and informed decision-making outcomes: anxiety (difference [d], 0.08; upper bound 97.5% CI, 0.45), cancer-specific distress (d, 0.66; upper bound 97.5% CI, 2.28), perceived personal control (d, -0.01; lower bound 97.5% CI, -0.06), and decisional conflict (d, -0.12; upper bound 97.5% CI, 2.03). Test uptake was lower for telephone counseling (27.9%) than in-person counseling (37.3%), with the difference of 9.4% (95% CI, 2.2% to 16.8%). Uptake was appreciably higher for rural compared with urban dwellers in both counseling arms. CONCLUSION: Although telephone counseling led to lower testing uptake, our findings suggest that telephone counseling can be effectively used to increase reach and access without long-term adverse psychosocial consequences. Further work is needed to determine long-term adherence to risk management guidelines and effective strategies to boost utilization of primary and secondary preventive strategies.

Economic Evaluation Alongside a Clinical Trial of Telephone Versus In-Person Genetic Counseling for BRCA1/2 Mutations in Geographically Underserved Areas.

PURPOSE: BRCA1/2 counseling and mutation testing is recommended for high-risk women, but geographic barriers exist, and no data on the costs and yields of diverse delivery approaches are available. METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation with a randomized clinical trial comparing telephone versus in-person counseling at 14 locations (nine geographically remote). Costs included fixed overhead, variable staff, and patient time costs; research costs were excluded. Outcomes included average per-person costs for pretest counseling; mutations detected; and overall counseling, testing, and disclosure. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of uncertainty. RESULTS: In-person counseling was more costly per person counseled than was telephone counseling ($270 [range, $180 to $400] v $120 [range, $80 to $200], respectively). Counselors averaged 285 miles round-trip to deliver in-person counseling to the participants (three participants per session). There were no differences by arm in mutation detection rates (approximately 10%); therefore, telephone counseling was less costly per positive mutation detected than was in-person counseling ($37,160 [range, $36,080 to$38,920] v $40,330 [range, $38,010 to $43,870]). In-person counseling would only be less costly than telephone counseling if the most favorable assumptions were applied to in personc ounseling and the least favorable assumptions were applied to telephone counseling. CONCLUSION: In geographically underserved areas, telephone counseling is less costly than in-person counseling.