SDHA secondary findings in germline testing: counseling and surveillance considerations.

This commentary explores the complexities faced by clinicians when encountering a secondary SDHA pathogenic variant (PV) in patients without a personal or family history of SDHA-related tumors. The increasing use of germline multi-gene panel testing has led to a rise in such secondary findings, necessitating a nuanced approach to counseling, surveillance, and decision-making. We aim to discuss the current data surrounding the penetrance of SDHA PVs, the spectrum of screening guidelines, recommendations for educating individuals and families about their secondary findings, and the need for future research to optimize care for these individuals. Practical recommendations for clinicians dealing with patients with secondary SDHA findings include acknowledging the limitations of existing guidelines, fostering shared decision-making, and considering specialist referrals. Overall, the evolving landscape of SDHA penetrance data warrants ongoing reassessment of surveillance approaches.

Development of an Electronic Decision Aid Tool to Facilitate Mainstream Genetic Testing in Ovarian Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Multigene panel testing is an important component of cancer treatment plans and risk assessment, but there are many different panel options and choosing the most appropriate panel can be challenging for health care providers and patients. Electronic tools have been proposed to help patients make informed decisions about which gene panel to choose by considering their preferences and priorities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic decision aid (DA) tool was developed in line with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards collaboration. The multidisciplinary project team collaborated with an external health care communications agency and the MGH Cancer Center Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) to develop the DA. Surveys of genetic counselors and patients were used to scope the content, and alpha testing was used to refine the design and content. RESULTS: Surveys of genetic counselors (n = 12) and patients (n = 228) identified common themes in discussing panel size and strategies for helping patients decide between panels and in identifying confusing terms for patients and distribution of patients' choices. The DA, organized into 2 major sections, provides educational text, graphics, and videos to guide patients through the decision-making process. Alpha testing feedback from the PFAC (n = 4), genetic counselors (n = 3) and a group of lay people (n = 8) identified areas to improve navigation, simplify wording, and improve layout. CONCLUSION: The DA developed in this study has the potential to facilitate informed decision-making by patients regarding cancer genetic testing. The distinctive feature of this DA is that it addresses the specific question of which multigene panel may be most suitable for the patient. Its acceptability and effectiveness will be evaluated in future studies.

Identification of Somatically Acquired BRCA1/2 Mutations by cfDNA Analysis in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Plasma genotyping may identify mutations in potentially "actionable" cancer genes, such as BRCA1/2, but their clinical significance is not well-defined. We evaluated the characteristics of somatically acquired BRCA1/2 mutations in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with MBC undergoing routine cell-free DNA (cfDNA) next-generation sequencing (73-gene panel) before starting a new therapy were included. Somatic BRCA1/2 mutations were classified as known germline pathogenic mutations or novel variants, and linked to clinicopathologic characteristics. The effect of the PARP inhibitor, olaparib, was assessed in vitro, using cultured circulating tumor cells (CTCs) from a patient with a somatically acquired BRCA1 mutation and a second patient with an acquired BRCA2 mutation. RESULTS: Among 215 patients with MBC, 29 (13.5%) had somatic cfDNA BRCA1/2 mutations [nine (4%) known germline pathogenic and rest (9%) novel variants]. Known germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations were common in younger patients (P = 0.008), those with triple-negative disease (P = 0.022), and they were more likely to be protein-truncating alterations and be associated with TP53 mutations. Functional analysis of a CTC culture harboring a somatic BRCA1 mutation demonstrated high sensitivity to PARP inhibition, while another CTC culture harboring a somatic BRCA2 mutation showed no differential sensitivity. Across the entire cohort, APOBEC mutational signatures (COSMIC Signatures 2 and 13) and the "BRCA" mutational signature (COSMIC Signature 3) were present in BRCA1/2-mutant and wild-type cases, demonstrating the high mutational burden associated with advanced MBC. CONCLUSIONS: Somatic BRCA1/2 mutations are readily detectable in MBC by cfDNA analysis, and may be present as both known germline pathogenic and novel variants.

Factors associated with referral and completion of genetic counseling in women with epithelial ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that all women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer undergo genetic testing, as the diagnosis of pathogenic variants may inform cancer survival and impact treatment options. The objective of this study was to assess factors associated with referral to genetic counseling in women with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified women with epithelial ovarian cancer from 2012 to 2017 at Massachusetts General Hospital and North Shore Medical Center, a community hospital affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated how race, age, stage, year of diagnosis, insurance status, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, and language relates to the receipt of genetic counseling. RESULTS: Of the total 276 women included, 73.9% were referred for genetic screening, of which 90.7% attended a genetic counseling visit. Older women were less likely to undergo genetic counseling (age ≥70 years: OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.94, p=0.04). Women who died within 365 days of initial oncology consult rarely reached a genetic counselor (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.24, p<0.001). Women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer were more likely to undergo counseling (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.74-6.15, p<0.001). There was no difference in receipt of genetic counseling by race, stage, year of diagnosis, insurance status, or language. CONCLUSION: Older women with epithelial ovarian cancer and those who died within 1 year of initiation of care were less likely to undergo recommended genetic counseling. Race, insurance status, and language were not identified as predictive factors, although we were limited in this assessment by small sample size.

HEREDITARY ENDOCRINE TUMOURS: CURRENT STATE-OF-THE-ART AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES: Challenges and opportunities in genetic counseling for hereditary endocrine neoplasia syndromes.

The Genetic Counseling Working Group from the 16th International Workshop on Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia (MEN 2019) convened to discuss contemporary challenges and opportunities in the area of genetic counseling for individuals and families affected by hereditary endocrine neoplasia syndromes. As healthcare professionals with multidisciplinary training in human genetics, risk assessment, patient education, psychosocial counseling, and research methodology, genetic counselors bring a unique perspective to working toward addressing these challenges and identifying their subsequent opportunities. This Working Group focused on the following broad areas: (1) genetic counseling resources for endocrine neoplasias, (2) candidate gene discovery, (3) implications of increasingly sensitive and expansive genetic testing technologies for both the germline and the tumors, and (4) situating clinical diagnoses for hereditary endocrine neoplasia syndromes in the context of present-day knowledge.

Finding a Balance: Reconciling the Needs of the Institution, Patient, and Genetic Counselor for Optimal Resource Utilization.

The current practice of cancer genetic counseling is undergoing widespread change and scrutiny. While there are clinical resources for genetic counselors (GCs) regarding the delivery of cancer genetic services, there is limited literature regarding effective management of a genetic counseling clinical program. We have developed administrative tools to manage a large team of GCs at a single academic medical center over a period of increasing demand for genetics services, with the initial aim of decreasing wait time for urgent genetic counseling visits. Here, we describe the three main elements of the clinical operations: Balancing patient volume between GCs, scheduling tracks for both routine and urgent appointments, and a team of triaging GCs to ensure appropriate patient referrals. For each of these elements, we describe how they have been modified over time and present data to support the utility of these strategies. The preliminary evidence offered here suggests that these tools allow for an equitable distribution of patient volume between team members, as well as the timely and accurate scheduling of urgent patients. As a result of the experiences presented here, other genetic counseling programs grappling with similar issues should be aware that it is possible to shift clinical operations to serve certain patient populations in a more timely fashion while keeping both providers and GC staff satisfied.

Case Report of a Prolactinoma in a Patient With a Novel MAX Mutation and Bilateral Pheochromocytomas.

Pheochromocytomas are neuroendocrine tumors that can arise sporadically or be inherited as a familial disease, and they may occur in isolation or as part of a multitumor syndrome. Familial disease typically presents in younger patients with a higher risk of multifocality. Recently, the tumor suppressor MYC-associated factor X (MAX) gene has been implicated as a cause of familial isolated pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. We describe a patient with a pituitary prolactinoma and bilateral pheochromocytomas who tested positive for a germline MAX mutation. Interestingly, the patient also had mild primary hyperparathyroidism that resolved upon resection of the pheochromocytomas despite the absence of parathyroid hormone staining in the tumors. To our knowledge, this case is the first report of prolactinoma in a patient with a MAX mutation, which suggests the possibility of germline MAX mutations also contributing to the development of prolactinomas.

Adverse events in cancer genetic testing: medical, ethical, legal, and financial implications.

Cancer genetic counseling and testing are now integral services in progressive cancer care. There has been much debate over whether these services should be delivered by providers with specialized training in genetics or by all clinicians. Adverse outcomes resulting from cancer genetic counseling and testing performed by clinicians without specialization in genetics have been reported, but formal documentation is sparse. In this review, we present a series of national cases illustrating major patterns of errors in cancer genetic counseling and testing and the resulting impact on medical liability, health care costs, and the patients and their families.