Systematic evidence review and meta-analysis of outcomes associated with cancer genetic counseling.

PURPOSE: Genetic counseling (GC) is standard of care in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). A rigorous assessment of the data reported from published studies is crucial to ensure the evidence-based implementation of GC. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 patient-reported and health-services-related outcomes associated with pre- and post-test GC in GCRA in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 5393 screened articles met inclusion criteria. No articles reporting post-test GC outcomes met inclusion criteria. For patient-reported outcomes, pre-test GC significantly decreased worry, increased knowledge, and decreased perceived risk but did not significantly affect patient anxiety, depression, decisional conflict, satisfaction, or intent to pursue genetic testing. For health-services outcomes, pre-test GC increased correct genetic test ordering, reduced inappropriate services, increased spousal support for genetic testing, and expedited care delivery but did not consistently improve cancer prevention behaviors nor lead to accurate risk assessment. The GRADE certainty in the evidence was very low or low. No included studies elucidated GC effect on mortality, cascade testing, cost-effectiveness, care coordination, shared decision making, or patient time burden. CONCLUSION: The true impact of GC on relevant outcomes is not known low quality or absent evidence. Although a meta-analysis found that pre-test GC had beneficial effects on knowledge, worry, and risk perception, the certainty of this evidence was low according to GRADE methodology. Further studies are needed to support the evidence-based application of GC in GCRA.

Germline Variant Spectrum Among African American Men Undergoing Prostate Cancer Germline Testing: Need for Equity in Genetic Testing.

PURPOSE: Guidelines for prostate cancer (PCA) germline testing (GT) have expanded, with impact on clinical management and hereditary cancer assessment. African American (AA) men have lower engagement in GT, with concern for widening disparities in genetically informed care. We evaluated the germline spectrum in a cohort of men with PCA enriched for AA men who underwent GT to inform tailored genetic evaluation strategies. METHODS: Participants included AA and White men with PCA tested with a 14-gene PCA panel: ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, EPCAM, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, PALB2, PMS2, RAD51D, and TP53. Germline analysis was performed per standard clinical testing and variant classification protocols. Data were compared with Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or two sample t-tests, as appropriate. Multivariable analysis was conducted using Akaike's Information Criterion. The significance level was set a priori at .05. RESULTS: The data set included 427 men all tested using the 14-gene PCA panel: AA (n = 237, 56%) and White (n = 190, 44%). Overall, the pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant rate was 8.2%, with AA men having lower rates of P/LP variants then White men (5.91% v 11.05%, respectively; P = .05). Borderline associations with P/LP variant status were observed by race (AA v White; odds ratio = 0.51; P = .07) and age (> 50 v ≤ 50 years; odds ratio = 0.48; P = .06). The P/LP spectrum was narrower in AA men (BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and BRCA1) than White men (BRCA2, ATM, HOXB13, CHEK2, TP53, and NBN). A significant difference was noted in rates of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) between AA men and White men overall (25.32% v 16.32%; P = .02) and for carrying multiple VUSs (5.1% v 0.53%, P = .008). CONCLUSION: Germline evaluation in a cohort enriched for AA men highlights the narrower spectrum of germline contribution to PCA with significantly higher rates of multiple VUSs in DNA repair genes. These results underscore the imperative to engage AA men in GT, the need for larger panel testing in AA men, and the necessity to incorporate novel genomic technologies to clarify VUS to discern the germline contribution to PCA. Furthermore, tailored genetic counseling for AA men is important to ensure understanding of VUS and promote equitable genetics care delivery.

Diagnosing hereditary cancer predisposition in men with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We describe the pathogenic variant spectrum and identify predictors of positive results among men referred for clinical genetic testing for prostate cancer. METHODS: One thousand eight hundred twelve men with prostate cancer underwent clinical multigene panel testing between April 2012 and September 2017. Stepwise logistic regression determined the most reliable predictors of positive results among clinical variables reported on test requisition forms. RESULTS: A yield of 9.4-12.1% was observed among men with no prior genetic testing. In this group, the positive rate of BRCA1 and BRCA2 was 4.6%; the positive rate for the mismatch repair genes was 2.8%. Increasing Gleason score (odds ratio [OR] 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.45); personal history of breast or pancreatic cancer (OR 3.62; 95% CI 1.37-9.46); family history of breast, ovarian, or pancreatic cancer (OR 2.32 95% CI 1.48-3.65); and family history of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.23-3.15) were predictors of positive results. CONCLUSION: These results support multigene panel testing as the primary genetic testing approach for hereditary prostate cancer and are supportive of recommendations for consideration of germline testing in men with prostate cancer. Expanding the criteria for genetic testing should be considered as many pathogenic variants are actionable for treatment of advanced prostate cancer.

Male breast cancer in a multi-gene panel testing cohort: insights and unexpected results.

PURPOSE: Genetic predisposition to male breast cancer (MBC) is not well understood. The aim of this study was to better define the predisposition genes contributing to MBC and the utility of germline multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) for explaining the etiology of MBCs. METHODS: Clinical histories and molecular results were retrospectively reviewed for 715 MBC patients who underwent MGPT from March 2012 to June 2016. RESULTS: The detection rate of MGPT was 18.1% for patients tested for variants in 16 breast cancer susceptibility genes and with no prior BRCA1/2 testing. BRCA2 and CHEK2 were the most frequently mutated genes (11.0 and 4.1% of patients with no prior BRCA1/2 testing, respectively). Pathogenic variants in BRCA2 [odds ratio (OR) = 13.9; p = 1.92 × 10-16], CHEK2 (OR = 3.7; p = 6.24 × 10-24), and PALB2 (OR = 6.6, p = 0.01) were associated with significantly increased risks of MBC. The average age at diagnosis of MBC was similar for patients with (64 years) and without (62 years) pathogenic variants. CHEK2 1100delC carriers had a significantly lower average age of diagnosis (n = 7; 54 years) than all others with pathogenic variants (p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed between history of additional primary cancers (non-breast) and family history of male breast cancer for patients with and without pathogenic variants. However, patients with pathogenic variants in BRCA2 were more likely to have a history of multiple primary breast cancers. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that all MBC patients regardless of age of diagnosis, history of multiple primary cancers, or family history of MBC should be offered MGPT.

Prediction of Cancer Prevention: From Mammogram Screening to Identification of BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers in Underserved Populations.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventative Service Task Force recommends that physicians perform a genetic risk assessment to identify women at risk for BRCA1/2 mutations associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome. However, outcomes data after a diagnosis of HBOC syndrome especially in diverse populations, are minimal. Here we asked if genetic screening of high-risk underserved women identified in the mammogram population reduces cancer incidence. METHODS: We evaluated 61,924 underserved women at screening mammography for family histories suggestive of HBOC syndrome over the course of 21 months. Data were collected retrospectively from patients at two safety net hospitals through chart review. A computer model was used to calculate the long-term effect of this screening on cancer incidence by assessing both the mutation detection rate and the completion of prophylactic surgeries in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. FINDINGS: We identified 20 of the 85 (23.5%) expected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the underserved population. The frequencies of prophylactic mastectomies and oophorectomies in the mutation carriers were 25% and 40%, respectively. Using these data, our model predicted only an 8.8% reduction in both breast and ovarian cancer in the underserved patients. This contrasts with a 57% reduction in breast cancer and 51% reduction in ovarian cancer in an insured reference population. Our data indicate that underserved patients with HBOC syndrome are difficult to identify and when identified are limited in their ability to adhere to NCCN guidelines for cancer prevention. INTERPRETATION: Screening for women at risk for HBOC syndrome in mammogram populations will only prevent cancers if we can increase compliance with management guidelines. This study provides prototypic baseline data for step-wise analysis of the efficacy of the use of family history analysis in the mammography setting for detection and management of HBOC syndrome.

An internal performance assessment of CancerGene Connect: an electronic tool to streamline, measure and improve the genetic counseling process.

CancerGene Connect (CGC) is a web-based program that combines the collection of family and medical history, cancer risk assessment, psychosocial assessment, report templates, a result tracking system, and a patient follow up system. The performance of CGC was assessed in several ways: pre-appointment completion data analyzed for demographic and health variables; a time study to assess overall time per case and to compare the data entry by the genetic counselor compared to the patient, and a measured quality assessment of the program via observation and interview of patients. Prior to their appointment, 52.3% of 2,414 patients completed the online patient questionnaire section of CGC. There were significant differences in completion rates among racial and ethnic groups. County hospital patients were less likely to complete the questionnaire than insured patients (p < 0.0001); and likewise uninsured patients and patients with Medicare/Medicaid were less likely to complete the questionnaire than private patients (p < 0.0001). The average genetic counseling time per case was 82 min, with no significant differences whether the counselor or the patient completed CGC. CGC reduces genetic counselor time by approximately 14-46% compared to average time per case using traditional risk assessment and documentation methods previously reported. All surveyed users felt the questionnaire was easy to understand. CGC is an effective tool that streamlines workflow, and provides a standardized data collection tool that can be used to evaluate and improve the genetic counseling process.