A pilot study investigating feasibility of mainstreaming germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high-risk patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer in three tertiary Cancer Centres in Ireland.

In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing has been traditionally undertaken in eligible individuals, after pre-test counselling by a Clinical Geneticist/Genetic Counsellor. Clinical Genetics services in ROI are poorly resourced, with routine waiting times for appointments at the time of this pilot often extending beyond a year. The consequent prolonged waiting times are unacceptable where therapeutic decision-making depends on the patient's BRCA status. "Mainstreaming" BRCA1/BRCA2 testing through routine oncology/surgical clinics has been implemented successfully in other centres in the UK and internationally. We aimed to pilot this pathway in three Irish tertiary centres. A service evaluation project was undertaken over a 6-month period between January and July 2017. Eligible patients, fulfilling pathology and age-based inclusion criteria defined by TGL clinical, were identified, and offered constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing after pre-test counselling by treating clinicians. Tests were undertaken by TGL Clinical. Results were returned to clinicians by secure email. Onward referrals of patients with uncertain/pathogenic results, or suspicious family histories, to Clinical Genetics were made by the treating team. Surveys assessing patient and clinician satisfaction were sent to participating clinicians and a sample of participating patients. Data was collected with respect to diagnostic yield, turnaround time, onward referral rates, and patient and clinician feedback. A total of 101  patients underwent diagnostic germline BRCA1/BRCA2 tests through this pathway. Pathogenic variants were identified in 12 patients (12%). All patients in whom variants were identified were appropriately referred to Clinical Genetics. At least 12 additional patients with uninformative BRCA1/BRCA2 tests were also referred for formal assessment by Clinical Geneticist or Genetic Counsellor. Issues were noted in terms of time pressures and communication of results to patients. Results from a representative sample of participants completing the satisfaction survey indicated that the pathway was acceptable to patients and clinicians. Mainstreaming of constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing guided by age- and pathology-based criteria is potentially feasible for patients with breast cancer as well as patients with ovarian cancer in Ireland.

Multidisciplinary interventions in a specialist Drug Development Unit to improve family history documentation and onward referral of patients with advanced cancer to cancer genetics services.

BACKGROUND: Molecular aberrations in cancer may represent therapeutic targets, and, if arising from the germline, may impact further cancer risk management in patients and their blood relatives. Annually, 600-700 patients are referred for consideration of experimental drug trials in the Drug Development Unit (DDU) in our institution. A proportion of patients may merit germline genetic testing because of suspicious personal/family history or findings of tumour-based testing. We aimed to assess the impact of different multidisciplinary interventions on family history taking and referral rates from DDU to Cancer Genetics Unit (CGU). METHODS: Over 42 months, three interventions were undertaken at different intervals: (1) embedding a genetics provider in the DDU review clinic, (2) 'traffic light' system flagging cancers with a heritable component and (3) virtual multidisciplinary meeting (MDM). Comparative analyses between intervals were undertaken, including referral rates to CGU, investigations and patient outcomes. Family history taking in a sample of 20 patients managed in each interval was assessed by a retrospective chart review. RESULTS: Frequency of family history taking and referral to CGU, increased with each intervention, particularly, the virtual MDM (40% vs 85%). Referral rates increased over the study period, from 0.1 referral/week (5/year, 0.36% total referrals) to 1.2/week (projected 63/year, 3.81%). Forty-four (52%) patients referred required germline testing; in three of whom, variants were identified. Non-attendance rates were low (6, 7%). CONCLUSION: Patients in the DDU are unique, with long cancer histories and often short estimated life expectancy. Multidisciplinary working between CGU and DDU facilitates germline testing of those patients who may otherwise miss the opportunity.

Clinical outcomes of adolescents and young adults with advanced solid tumours participating in phase I trials.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with advanced solid tumours are often considered for phase I clinical trials with novel agents. The outcome of AYAs in these trials have not been described before. AIM: To study the outcome of AYA patients in phase I clinical trials. METHODS: Clinical trial data of AYAs (defined as aged 15-39 years at diagnosis) treated at the Drug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, between 2002 and 2016, were analysed. RESULTS: From a prospectively maintained database of 2631 patients treated in phase I trials, 219 AYA patients (8%) were identified. Major tumour types included gynaecological cancer (25%) and sarcoma (18%). Twenty-five (11%) had a known hereditary cancer syndrome (most commonly BRCA). Molecular characterisation of tumours (n = 45) identified mutations most commonly in TP53 (33%), PI3KCA (18%) and KRAS (9%). Therapeutic targets of trials included DNA damage repair (16%), phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) (16%) and angiogenesis (16%). Grade 3/4 toxicities were experienced in 26% of patients. Of the 214 evaluable patients, objective response rate was 12%, with clinical benefit rate at 6 months of 22%. Median overall survival (OS) was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval: 6.3-9.5), and 2-year OS was 11%. Of patients with responses, 36% were matched to phase I trials based on germline or somatic genetic aberrations. CONCLUSION: We describe the outcome of the largest cohort of AYA patients treated in phase I trials. A subgroup of these patients demonstrates benefit, with several durable responses beyond 2 years. A sizeable proportion of AYA patients have cancer syndromes, significant family history or somatic molecular aberrancies which may influence novel therapeutic treatment options.

The role of genomic profiling in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with advanced cancer participating in phase I clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) diagnosed with cancer between ages 15-39 years may harbour germline variants associated with cancer predisposition. Such variants represent putative therapeutic targets, as may somatic variants in the tumour. Germline and tumour molecular profiling is increasingly utilised to facilitate personalisation of cancer treatment in such individuals. AIM: Considering AYAs with advanced solid tumours managed in a specialist drug development unit (DDU), the aims of this study were to investigate the use and impact of: 1. Germline genetic assessment. 2. Tumour molecular profiling. METHODS: AYAs treated in the DDU at the Royal Marsden Hospital between 2002 and 2016 were identified from departmental databases. Data regarding clinicopathological features, clinical assessments and germline and tumour genetic testing were retrieved by chart review. RESULTS: The study cohort included 219 AYAs. Common cancer types included sarcoma (41, 19%); cervical (27, 12%); breast (25, 11%); ovarian (23, 11%) and colorectal (21, 10%) cancers. Germline testing was undertaken in 34 (16%) patients, 22 of whom carried a pathogenic variant. Using current testing criteria, an additional 32 (15%) would be eligible for germline testing based on their personal history of cancer alone. Tumour testing was undertaken in 46 (21%) individuals. Somatic mutations were commonly identified in TP53 13 (28%); PIK3CA (8, 18%); KRAS (4, 9%) and MET 5 (11%). DISCUSSION: A significant proportion of AYAs with advanced cancer have targetable somatic or germline mutations. Consideration of familial risk factors and inclusion of germline testing wherever appropriate can complement tumour testing to optimise patient management and inform management of at-risk relatives.

Successful Repatriation of Breast Cancer Surveillance for High-Risk Women to the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme.

BACKGROUND: Since April 2013, the UK's National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) centers have been obliged to provide services for women at the highest risk of breast cancer, including those carrying highly penetrant single gene mutations (BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53). Since then, such individuals previously undergoing surveillance in the Royal Marsden Hospital were referred to their local NHSBSP centers. We aimed to assess patient experience of surveillance provided by local NHSBSP services at 1 and 3 years after repatriation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: High-risk gene mutation carriers referred to the NHSBSP for breast cancer surveillance were identified from a departmental database in the Cancer Genetics Unit and invited to complete questionnaires about their experience of surveillance under this new pathway, first in 2014 and again in 2016. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-six individuals were invited to participate in 2014, of whom 182 responded (53%). A total of 464 patients were invited in 2016, of whom 246 (53%) completed the second questionnaire. Ninety-four percent of patients with residual breast tissue received some screening at the first (n = 161) and second (n = 185) time points. Ninety-one percent of patients (n = 146) received at least recommended surveillance in the year preceding the initial survey, a proportion decreasing slightly by the second time point (n = 164, 87%). Seventeen percent of individuals required additional diagnostic investigations, with cancers detected in 2%. These proportions remained stable between surveys. CONCLUSION: Repatriation of high-risk individuals from Royal Marsden Hospital to NHSBSP centers has been successfully accomplished. Most individuals received appropriate recommended annual surveillance. Further improvements are required to ensure equal and timely provision of recommended surveillance.