Secondary (additional) findings from the 100,000 Genomes Project: Disease manifestation, health care outcomes, and costs of disclosure.

PURPOSE: The UK 100,000 Genomes Project offered participants screening for additional findings (AFs) in genes associated with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) or hereditary cancer syndromes including breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch, familial adenomatous polyposis, MYH-associated polyposis, multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN), and von Hippel-Lindau. Here, we report disclosure processes, manifestation of AF-related disease, outcomes, and costs. METHODS: An observational study in an area representing one-fifth of England. RESULTS: Data were collected from 89 adult AF recipients. At disclosure, among 57 recipients of a cancer-predisposition-associated AF and 32 recipients of an FH-associated AF, 35% and 88%, respectively, had personal and/or family history evidence of AF-related disease. During post-disclosure investigations, 4 cancer-AF recipients had evidence of disease, including 1 medullary thyroid cancer. Six women with an HBOC AF, 3 women with a Lynch syndrome AF, and 2 individuals with a MEN AF elected for risk-reducing surgery. New hyperlipidemia diagnoses were made in 6 FH-AF recipients and treatment (re-)initiated for 7 with prior hyperlipidemia. Generating and disclosing AFs in this region cost £1.4m; £8680 per clinically significant AF. CONCLUSION: Generation and disclosure of AFs identifies individuals with and without personal or familial evidence of disease and prompts appropriate clinical interventions. Results can inform policy toward secondary findings.

Talking about Risk, UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING): development and evaluation of an educational programme for healthcare professionals about BRCA1 & BRCA2 testing.

BACKGROUND: Mainstreaming of germline testing demands that all healthcare professionals have good communication skills, but few have genetic testing and counselling experience. We developed and evaluated educational workshops-Talking about Risk & UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING). Contents included: presentations and exercises, an interview with a geneticist about BRCA testing, screening and prevention implications, filmed interactions between surgeons, a genetic counsellor and geneticists with a fictitious family (proband had a BRCA2 pathogenic variant with triple-negative breast cancer, her older sister-BRCA2 heterozygous, and cousin-negative for BRCA2 variant). METHODS: Twenty-one surgeons, 5 oncologists, 18 nurses and 9 genetic counsellors participated. Knowledge (18 item MCQ), communication skills (responses to 6 questions from proband and relatives) and self-confidence (discussing 9 genetic testing issues) were assessed pre- and post workshop. RESULTS: Knowledge scores improved significantly post workshop (mean change = 7.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.37-7.74; P < 0.001), as did communication (mean change = 5.38; 95% CI 4.37-6.38; P < 0.001) and self-confidence (P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Healthcare professionals' knowledge and self-confidence when discussing the risks and uncertainties in genetics are often poor. TRUSTING workshops significantly enhanced attendees' navigation of communication difficulties encountered and will be rolled out more widely.

Evaluation of tumour surveillance protocols and outcomes in von Hippel-Lindau disease in a national health service.

BACKGROUND: Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease is an inherited tumour predisposition syndrome and a paradigm for the importance of early diagnosis and surveillance. However, there is limited information on the "real world" management of VHL disease. METHODS: A national audit of VHL disease in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: VHL disease was managed mostly via specialist clinics coordinated through regional clinical genetics services (but frequently involving additional specialties). Over the study period, 19 genetic centres saw 842 individuals (393 males, 449 females) with a clinical and/or molecular diagnosis of VHL disease and 74 individuals (35 male, 39 female) with a prior risk of 50% (affected parent). All centres offered retinal, central nervous system and abdominal surveillance to affected individuals and at-risk relatives though surveillance details differed between centres (but complied with international recommendations). Renal lesions detected on the first surveillance scan were, on average, larger than those detected during subsequent scans and the larger the diameter at detection the greater the likelihood of early intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In a state-funded health care system individuals with a rare inherited cancer predisposition syndrome are generally able to access appropriate surveillance and patient management is improved compared to historical data. The "real world" data from this study will inform the future development of VHL management protocols.

UKCGG Consensus Group guidelines for the management of patients with constitutional TP53 pathogenic variants.

Constitutional pathogenic variants in TP53 are associated with Li-Fraumeni syndrome or the more recently described heritable TP53-related cancer syndrome and are associated with increased lifetime risks of a wide spectrum of cancers. Due to the broad tumour spectrum, surveillance for this patient group has been limited. To date, the only recommendation in the UK has been for annual breast MRI in women; however, more recently, a more intensive surveillance protocol including whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) has been recommended by International Expert Groups. To address the gap in surveillance for this patient group in the UK, the UK Cancer Genetics Group facilitated a 1-day consensus meeting to discuss a protocol for the UK. Using a preworkshop survey followed by structured discussion on the day, we achieved consensus for a UK surveillance protocol for TP53 carriers to be adopted by UK Clinical Genetics services. The key recommendations are for annual WB-MRI and dedicated brain MRI from birth, annual breast MRI from 20 years in women and three-four monthly abdominal ultrasound in children along with review in a dedicated clinic.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing with third party interpretation: beware of spurious results.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests aim to provide insights into issues as varied as ancestry, nutrition, athletic ability and child talent, and some also report on disease risks. DTC companies tend to present their tests as uniformly beneficial, but the quality of the information they provide can be doubtful. Tests often invite people to step between territories, from the consumer in search of 'fun' information to potential patient, and the boundaries between these roles become even murkier when individuals explore the raw data from their DTC tests using third-party interpretation websites. We discuss two composite cases from U.K. genetics centres where patients used third party interpretation services to analyse raw data from DTC genetic tests. They then presented to NHS clinical services requesting interventions based on the disease-associated variants found, only to find that these variants were not actually present: their 'pathogenic results' were spurious. We highlight the risk of false positives (as well as false negatives) from DTC genetic tests, and discuss whether these cases represent the start of a worrying trend, where publicly funded clinicians and clinical scientists increasingly need to spend time and money investigating genetic results of dubious validity.

How do clinical genetics consent forms address the familial approach to confidentiality and incidental findings? A mixed-methods study.

Genetic test results can be relevant to patients and their relatives. Questions thus arise around whether clinicians regard genetic information as confidential to individuals or to families, and about how they broach this and other issues, including the potential for incidental findings, in consent (forms) for genetic testing. We conducted a content analysis of UK-wide genetic testing consent forms and interviewed 128 clinicians/laboratory scientists. We found that almost all genetic services offered patients multiple, sometimes unworkable, choices on forms, including an option to veto the use of familial genetic information to benefit relatives. Participants worried that documented choices were overriding professional judgement and cautioned against any future forms dictating practice around incidental findings. We conclude that 'tick-box' forms, which do little to enhance autonomy, are masking valid consent processes in clinical practice. As genome-wide testing becomes commonplace, we must re-consider consent processes, so that they protects patients'-and relatives'-interests.

Primary Clear Cell Microcystic Adenoma of the Sinonasal Cavity: Pathological or Fortuitous Association?

Primary clear cell microcystic adenoma of the sinonasal cavity is rare. It has previously been described only as a VHL-associated tumour. Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) syndrome is an inherited cancer syndrome characterised by an elevated risk of neoplasia including clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), haemangioblastoma, and phaeochromocytoma. We describe the second reported case of a primary clear cell microcystic adenoma of the sinonasal cavity. The 39-year-old patient with VHL syndrome had previously undergone resection and ablation of ccRCC. He presented with epistaxis. Imaging demonstrated a mass in the ethmoid sinus. Initial clinical suspicion was of metastatic ccRCC. However, tumour morphology and immunoprofile were distinct from the previous ccRCC and supported a diagnosis of primary microcystic adenoma. Analysis of DNA extracted from sinonasal tumour tissue did not show loss of the wild-type allele at the VHL locus. Although this did not support tumour association with VHL disease, it was not possible to look for a loss-of-function mutation. The association of primary microcystic adenoma of the sinonasal cavity with VHL disease remains speculative. These lesions are benign but are likely to require regular surveillance. Such tumours may require repeated surgical excision.

Health-care professionals' responsibility to patients' relatives in genetic medicine: a systematic review and synthesis of empirical research.

PURPOSE: The extent of the responsibility of health-care professionals (HCPs) to ensure that patients' relatives are told of their risk is unclear. Current international guidelines take confidentiality to the individual patient as the default position, but some suggest that disclosure could be default and genetic information could be conceptualized as familial. METHODS: Our systematic review and synthesis of 17 studies explored the attitudes of HCPs, patients, and the public regarding the extent of HCPs' responsibility to relatives with respect to disclosure. RESULTS: Health-care professionals generally felt a responsibility to patients' relatives but perceived a variety of reasons why it would be difficult to act on this responsibility. Public/patient views were more wide-ranging. Participants identified several competing and overlapping arguments for and against HCP disclosure: guidelines do not permit/mandate it, privacy, medical benefit, impact on family dynamics, quality of communication, and respecting autonomy. CONCLUSION: We argue that HCPs can sometimes share genetic information without breaching confidentiality and that they could factor into their considerations the potential harm to family dynamics of nondisclosure. However, we need more nuanced research about their responsibilities to relatives, particularly as genomic tests are used more frequently in clinical practice.Genet Med 18 4, 290-301.

Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice.

The rapidly declining costs and increasing speeds of whole-genome analysis mean that genetic testing is undergoing a shift from targeted approaches to broader ones that look at the entire genome. As whole-genome technologies gain widespread use, questions about the management of so-called incidental findings-those unrelated to the question being asked-need urgent consideration. In this review, we bring together current understanding and arguments about (1) appropriate terminology, (2) the determination of clinical utility and when to disclose incidental findings, (3) the differences in management and disclosure in clinical, research and commercial contexts and (4) ethical and practical issues about familial implications and recontacting those tested. We recommend that greater international consensus is developed around the disclosure and management of incidental findings, with particular attention to when, and how, less clear-cut results should be communicated. We suggest that there is no single term that captures all the issues around these kinds of findings and that different terms may, therefore, need to be used in different settings. We also encourage the use of clear consent processes, but suggest that the absence of consent should not always preclude disclosure. Finally, we recommend further research to identify ways to implement the use of a genome output as a resource, accessible over time, to facilitate appropriate disclosure and recontact when the significance of a previously unclear incidental finding is clarified.

Genetic medicine and incidental findings: it is more complicated than deciding whether to disclose or not.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the clinical management of incidental findings. Advances in the speed and sensitivity of genetic technologies have not only improved the diagnostic rate but also result in an increase in unanticipated diagnoses. Recent debate on such "incidental findings" has considered whether or not to actively search for and, then, disclose incidental findings. In our experience, many incidental findings need to be investigated in family members before their clinical significance can be assessed. This adds complexity to the debate about disclosure. METHODS: Using anonymized clinical examples, we illustrate the downstream implications when a result reveals an incidental abnormality of potential clinical significance that is not related to the reasons for doing the test. RESULTS: Our examples illustrate that the determination of clinical significance may require participation of family members in both testing and surveillance. CONCLUSION: The need to investigate multiple relatives in order to decide whether or not a finding is clinically significant has implications for consent and disclosure practices. Communication with, and care for, relatives who have no reason to suspect particular diagnoses is a challenge for any health-care service. These costs also need to be taken into account as genetic testing enters mainstream medicine.

Long-term effect of resistant starch on cancer risk in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer: an analysis from the CAPP2 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies report that higher intake of dietary fibre (a heterogeneous mix including non-starch polysaccharides and resistant starches) is associated with reduced risk of colorectal cancer, but no randomised trials with prevention of colorectal cancer as a primary endpoint have been done. We assessed the effect of resistant starch on the incidence of colorectal cancer. METHODS: In the CAPP2 study, individuals with Lynch syndrome were randomly assigned in a two-by-two factorial design to receive 600 mg aspirin or aspirin placebo or 30 g resistant starch or starch placebo, for up to 4 years. Randomisation was done with a block size of 16. Post-intervention, patients entered into double-blind follow-up; participants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint for this analysis was development of colorectal cancer in participants randomly assigned to resistant starch or resistant-starch placebo with both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This study is registered, ISRCTN 59521990. FINDINGS: 463 patients were randomly assigned to receive resistant starch and 455 to receive resistant-starch placebo. At a median follow-up 52·7 months (IQR 28·9-78·4), 53 participants developed 61 primary colorectal cancers (27 of 463 participants randomly assigned to resistant starch, 26 of 455 participants assigned to resistant-starch placebo). Intention-to-treat analysis of time to first colorectal cancer showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·40 (95% CI 0·78-2·56; p=0·26) and Poisson regression accounting for multiple primary events gave an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1·15 (95% CI 0·66-2·00; p=0·61). For those completing 2 years of intervention, per-protocol analysis yielded a HR of 1·09 (0·55-2·19, p=0·80) and an IRR of 0·98 (0·51-1·88, p=0·95). No information on adverse events was gathered during post-intervention follow-up. INTERPRETATION: Resistant starch had no detectable effect on cancer development in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer. Dietary supplementation with resistant starch does not emulate the apparently protective effect of diets rich in dietary fibre against colorectal cancer. FUNDING: European Union, Cancer Research UK, Bayer Corporation, National Starch and Chemical Co, UK Medical Research Council, Newcastle Hospitals Trustees, Cancer Council of Victoria Australia, THRIPP South Africa, The Finnish Cancer Foundation, SIAK Switzerland, and Bayer Pharma.

Long-term effect of aspirin on cancer risk in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer: an analysis from the CAPP2 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies report reduced colorectal cancer in regular aspirin consumers. Randomised controlled trials have shown reduced risk of adenomas but none have employed prevention of colorectal cancer as a primary endpoint. The CAPP2 trial aimed to investigate the antineoplastic effects of aspirin and a resistant starch in carriers of Lynch syndrome, the major form of hereditary colorectal cancer; we now report long-term follow-up of participants randomly assigned to aspirin or placebo. METHODS: In the CAPP2 randomised trial, carriers of Lynch syndrome were randomly assigned in a two-by-two factorial design to 600 mg aspirin or aspirin placebo or 30 g resistant starch or starch placebo, for up to 4 years. Randomisation was in blocks of 16 with provision for optional single-agent randomisation and extended postintervention double-blind follow-up; participants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was development of colorectal cancer. Analysis was by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial is registered, ISRCTN59521990. RESULTS: 861 participants were randomly assigned to aspirin or aspirin placebo. At a mean follow-up of 55·7 months, 48 participants had developed 53 primary colorectal cancers (18 of 427 randomly assigned to aspirin, 30 of 434 to aspirin placebo). Intention-to-treat analysis of time to first colorectal cancer showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·63 (95% CI 0·35-1·13, p=0·12). Poisson regression taking account of multiple primary events gave an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0·56 (95% CI 0·32-0·99, p=0·05). For participants completing 2 years of intervention (258 aspirin, 250 aspirin placebo), per-protocol analysis yielded an HR of 0·41 (0·19-0·86, p=0·02) and an IRR of 0·37 (0·18-0·78, p=0·008). No data for adverse events were available postintervention; during the intervention, adverse events did not differ between aspirin and placebo groups. INTERPRETATION: 600 mg aspirin per day for a mean of 25 months substantially reduced cancer incidence after 55·7 months in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer. Further studies are needed to establish the optimum dose and duration of aspirin treatment. FUNDING: European Union; Cancer Research UK; Bayer Corporation; National Starch and Chemical Co; UK Medical Research Council; Newcastle Hospitals trustees; Cancer Council of Victoria Australia; THRIPP South Africa; The Finnish Cancer Foundation; SIAK Switzerland; Bayer Pharma.

Survival in women with MMR mutations and ovarian cancer: a multicentre study in Lynch syndrome kindreds.

BACKGROUND: Women with a germline mutation in one of the MMR genes MLH1, MSH2 or MSH6 reportedly have 4-12% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer, but there is limited knowledge on survival. Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (PBSO) has been suggested for preventing this condition. AIM: The purpose of this retrospective multicentre study was to describe survival in carriers of pathogenic mutations in one of the MMR genes, and who had contracted ovarian cancer. METHODS: Women who had ovarian cancer, and who tested positive for or were obligate carriers of an MMR mutation, were included from 11 European centres for hereditary cancer. Most women had not attended for gynaecological screening. Crude and disease specific survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier algorithm. RESULTS: Among the 144 women included, 81.5% had FIGO stage 1 or 2 at diagnosis. 10 year ovarian cancer specific survival independent of staging was 80.6%, compared to less than 40% that is reported both in population based series and in BRCA mutation carriers. Disease specific 30 year survival for ovarian cancer was 71.5%, and for all hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC)/Lynch syndrome related cancers including ovarian cancer it was 47.3%. CONCLUSIONS: In the series examined, infiltrating ovarian cancer in Lynch syndrome had a better prognosis than infiltrating ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers or in the general population. Lifetime risk of ovarian cancer of about 10% and a risk of dying of ovarian cancer of 20% gave a lifetime risk of dying of ovarian cancer of about 2% in female MMR mutation carriers.