Limited Independent Follow-Up with Germline Testing of Variants Detected in BRCA1 and BRCA2 by Tumor-Only Sequencing.

Introduction: Genomic profiling is performed in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, in order to direct cancer treatment, often sequencing tumor-only, without a matched germline comparator. However, because many of the genes analyzed on tumor profiling overlap with those known to be associated with hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes (HCPS), tumor-only profiling can unknowingly uncover germline pathogenic (P) and likely pathogenic variants (LPV). In this study, we evaluated the number of patients with P/LPVs identified in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) via tumor-only profiling, then determined the germline testing outcomes for those patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients with BRCA1/2 variants on tumor-only genomic profiling, and whether they had germline testing. Results: This study found that of 2923 patients with 36 tumor types who underwent tumor-only testing, 554 had a variant in BRCA1/2 (19.0%); 119 of the 554 patients (21.5%) had a P/LP BRCA1/2 variant, representing 4.1% of the overall population who underwent genomic profiling. Seventy-three (61.3%) of 119 patients with BRCA1/2 P/LPV on tumor-only testing did not undergo germline testing, 34 (28.6%) had already had germline testing before tumor-only testing, and 12 (10.1%) underwent germline testing after tumor-only testing. Twenty-eight germline BRCA1/2 P/LPVs were detected, 24 in those who had prior germline testing, and 4 among the 12 patients who had germline testing after tumor-only testing. Conclusion: Tumor-only testing is likely to identify P/LPVs in BRCA1/2. Efforts to improve follow-up germline testing is needed to improve identification of germline BRCA1/2 alterations.

Clinical experience with sex chromosome aneuploidies detected by noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT): Accuracy and patient decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study are to assess the accuracy of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) and to investigate patient decision-making in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study review of positive NIPT results for SCAs from January 2013 to September 2017. RESULTS: Of the 136 positive NIPT results for SCAs, 73 (53.7%) were positive for 45,X, 62 (45.6%) were a sex chromosome trisomy, and 1 was a sex chromosome tetrasomy. Of the 134 viable pregnancies, 46 (34.3%) elected to pursue prenatal diagnosis. Fewer women underwent invasive prenatal testing when counseled regarding a positive NIPT for monosomy X in the presence of suggestive ultrasound findings (4/23; 17.4%) compared with those who had a positive NIPT result without ultrasound findings (24/46, 52.2%). Abnormal karyotypes consistent with the NIPT result were confirmed in 30/64 (46.9%). Even in the context of ultrasound abnormalities, there was not 100% concordance. CONCLUSIONS: The majority (88/134; 65.7%) of patients in our cohort declined prenatal diagnosis even in the presence of associated ultrasound findings. Comprehensive pretest and posttest counseling is recommended and should address the importance of confirmatory testing and benefits of early diagnosis. Practice guidelines are needed to address provider responsibilities about postnatal testing.

Genesurance Counseling: Patient Perspectives.

Genetic counselors (GCs) have reported an increase in discussion of insurance-related, or "genesurance," topics during genetic counseling sessions. Despite increasing frequency, there have been no studies examining patient expectations of GCs in these discussions. This study aimed to explore patient expectations of GCs in these discussions, as well as examine factors that may impact expectations. A 38-item survey was administered prior to patients receiving prenatal or cancer genetic counseling at 11 clinic sites across UTHealth, Baylor College of Medicine, and Sanford Health, with 360 responses analyzed. Key variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and multivariate logistic regression to assess associations between factors and control for potential confounders. Over 75% of patients expected GCs to discuss genesurance topics during a genetic counseling session. The majority of patients (78%) expected GCs to provide an estimated out-of-pocket cost, know if a test is a covered benefit (77%), and provide referral information for further questions (76%). Two additional expectations, considered to be unrealistic in most clinical settings, included expecting GCs to know the patient's specific insurance plan and coverage information (57%) and provide an exact out-of-pocket cost (41%). Ethnicity was the only significant predictor of response for these two expectations, as African Americans and Hispanics were more likely than Caucasians to have these beliefs. While the patient participants felt that GCs were primarily responsible for initiating these conversations, they also reported a personal sense of responsibility for raising questions. This study demonstrates that patients may expect GCs to address genesurance topics in a genetic counseling session, with specific expectations about the cost and coverage of genetic tests. Further studies will establish the most effective way to communicate this information to patients and examine whether and where within the scope of GC practice, genesurance discussions fall.