Polygenic risk in familial breast cancer: Changing the dynamics of communicating genetic risk.

Hereditary breast cancer is associated with known genetic changes: either variants that affect function in a few rare genes or an ever-increasing number of common genomic risk variants, which combine to produce a cumulative effect, known as a polygenic risk (PR) score. While the clinical validity and utility of PR scores are still being determined, the communication of PR is a new challenge for genetic health professionals. This study investigated how PR scores are discussed in the familial cancer clinic compared with a previous study assessing the communication of monogenic risk (MR) for breast cancer. Sixty-five PR consultations between genetic health professionals and women at familial risk of breast cancer were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using a methodology adapted from the MR study. Analysis of consultations shows that while there were similarities in communicating MR and PR, the complexity and novelty of the polygenic information influenced the style of counseling used by genetic health professionals toward a teaching model of genetic counseling, rather than a patient-centered approach. In particular, compared to MR consultations, in PR consultations significantly fewer counselees (a) were asked about their reasons for attending genetic counseling; or (b) had their information preferences, decision-making style, medical knowledge, understanding, or concerns checked. In conclusion, it is anticipated that PR scores will become part of standard clinical practice. Thus, it will be important for all genetic health professionals to be appropriately educated so that they can tailor their communication to meet patient needs.

Stakeholder attitudes towards establishing a national genomics registry of inherited cancer predisposition: a qualitative study.

This study aimed to describe the acceptability and perceived barriers and enablers to establish a national registry targeting carriers of pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes from stakeholders' perspectives. Such a registry may effectively target carriers to translate existing research findings into optimised clinical care and provide a population-level resource for further clinical research and new gene and therapy discovery. In-depth interviews were conducted with individuals from four stakeholder groups: carriers of pathogenic variants, healthcare professionals, data custodians from the field of familial cancer, and heads of molecular pathology laboratories. Interview data were subjected to a qualitative analysis guided by a thematic analysis framework using NVivo software. A total of 28 individuals were interviewed: 11 carriers, 8 healthcare professionals, 5 laboratory heads, and 4 data custodians. All carriers and healthcare professionals were enthusiastic about the potential research applications of the registry. Carriers described that altruistic motivations provided the foundation of their support of the planned registry. Some carriers felt comfortable with a broad consent (consenting once, prospectively), while others preferred a narrow consent approach (consenting each time data is accessed). Some carriers and data custodians and registry developers also expressed a reluctance to link family member data without appropriate consent. Participants' enthusiasm and support for a national registry herald a productive and responsive research partnership once the registry has been established. Participants' views can be used to inform the approaches to be taken to develop and manage such a registry as an implicit codesign approach.

Breast cancer polygenic risk scores: a 12-month prospective study of patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior.

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior of women choosing to receive (receivers) or decline (decliners) their breast cancer polygenic risk score (PRS). METHODS: Women either unaffected or affected by breast cancer and from families with no identified pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk gene were invited to receive their PRS. All participants completed a questionnaire at study enrollment. Receivers completed questionnaires at two weeks and 12 months after receiving their PRS, and decliners a second questionnaire at 12 months post study enrollment. RESULTS: Of the 208 participants, 165 (79%) received their PRS. Among receivers, there were no changes in anxiety or distress following testing. However, compared to women with a low PRS, those with a high PRS reported greater genetic testing-specific distress, perceived risk, decisional regret, and less genetic testing-positive response. At 12 months, breast screening and uptake of risk-reducing strategies were consistent with current Australian guidelines of breast cancer risk management. Reasons for declining PRS included being unable to attend the appointment in person and concerns over potential emotional response. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the study provide insight into women's responses to receiving PRS and highlight the issues that need to be addressed in the associated model of genetic counseling.

Significant detection of new germline pathogenic variants in Australian Pancreatic Cancer Screening Program participants.

BACKGROUND: The Australian Pancreatic Cancer Screening Program (APCSP) offers endoscopic ultrasound surveillance for individuals at increased risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with all participants requiring assessment by a Familial Cancer Service before or after study enrolment. METHODS: Individuals aged 40-80 years (or 10 years younger than the earliest PDAC diagnosis) were eligible for APCSP study entry if they had 1) ≥ two blood relatives with PDAC (at least one of first-degree association); 2) a clinical or genetic diagnosis of Hereditary Pancreatitis or Peutz-Jeghers syndrome irrespective of PDAC family history; or 3) a known PDAC predisposition germline pathogenic variant (BRCA2, PALB2, CDKN2A, or Lynch syndrome) with ≥one PDAC-affected first- or second-degree relative. Retrospective medical record review was conducted for APCSP participants enrolled at the participating Australian hospitals from January 2011 to December 2019. We audited the genetic investigations offered by multiple Familial Cancer Services who assessed APCSP participants according to national guidelines, local clinical protocol and/or the availability of external research-funded testing, and the subsequent findings. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Of 189 kindreds (285 participants), 50 kindreds (71 participants) had a known germline pathogenic variant at enrolment (BRCA2 n = 35, PALB2 n = 6, CDKN2A n = 3, STK11 n = 3, PRSS1 n = 2, MLH1 n = 1). Forty-eight of 136 (35%) kindreds with no known germline pathogenic variant were offered mutation analysis; 89% was clinic-funded, with increasing self-funded testing since 2016. The relatively low rates of genetic testing performed reflects initial strict criteria for clinic-funded genetic testing. New germline pathogenic variants were detected in five kindreds (10.4%) after study enrolment (BRCA2 n = 3 kindreds, PALB2 n = 1, CDKN2A n = 1). Of note, only eight kindreds were reassessed by a Familial Cancer Service since enrolment, with a further 21 kindreds identified as being suitable for reassessment. CONCLUSION: Germline pathogenic variants associated with PDAC were seen in 29.1% of our high-risk cohort (55/189 kindreds; 82/285 participants). Importantly, 10.4% of kindreds offered genetic testing were newly identified as having germline pathogenic variants, with majority being BRCA2. As genetic testing standards evolve rapidly in PDAC, 5-yearly reassessment of high-risk individuals by Familial Cancer Services is warranted.

Communicating polygenic risk scores in the familial breast cancer clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the communication of polygenic risk scores (PRS) in the familial breast cancer setting. METHODS: Consultations between genetic healthcare providers (GHP) and female patients who received their PRS for breast cancer risk were recorded (n = 65). GHPs included genetic counselors (n = 8) and medical practitioners (n = 5) (i.e. clinical geneticists and oncologists). A content analysis was conducted and logistic regression was used to assess differences in communication behaviors between genetic counselors (n = 8) and medical practitioners (n = 5). RESULTS: Of the 65 patients, 31 (47.7 %) had a personal history of breast cancer, 18 of whom received an increased PRS (relative risk >1.2). 25/34 unaffected patients received an increased PRS. Consultations were primarily clinician-driven and focused on biomedical information. There was little difference between the biomedical information provided by genetic counselors and medical practitioners. However, genetic counselors were significantly more likely to utilize strategies to build patient rapport and counseling techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide one of the earliest reports on how breast cancer PRSs are communicated to women. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Key messages for communicating PRSs were identified, namely: discussing differences between polygenic and monogenic testing, the multifactorial nature of breast cancer risk, polygenic inheritance and current limitation of PRSs.

Implementing gene curation for hereditary cancer susceptibility in Australia: achieving consensus on genes with clinical utility.

BACKGROUND: The strength of evidence supporting the validity of gene-disease relationships is variable. Hereditary cancer has the additional complexity of low or moderate penetrance for some confirmed disease-associated alleles. METHODS: To promote national consistency in interpretation of hereditary cancer/tumour gene test results, we requested opinions of representatives from Australian Family Cancer Clinics regarding the clinical utility of 157 genes initially collated for a national research project. Viewpoints were sought by initial survey, face-to-face workshop and follow-up survey. Subsequent review was undertaken by the eviQ Cancer Genetics Reference Committee, a national resource providing evidence-based and consensus-driven cancer treatment protocols. RESULTS: Genes were categorised by clinical actionability as: relevant for testing on presentation of common cancer/tumour types (n=45); relevant for testing in the context of specific rare phenotypes (n=74); insufficient clinical utility (n=34) or contentious clinical utility (n=3). Opinions for several genes altered during the study time frame, due to new information. CONCLUSION: Through an iterative process, consensus was achieved on genes with clinical utility for hereditary cancer/tumour conditions in the Australian setting. This study highlighted need for regular review of gene-disease lists, a role assumed in Australia for hereditary cancer/tumour predisposition genes by the eviQ Cancer Genetics Reference Committee.

How can Australia integrate routine genetic sequencing in oncology: a qualitative study through an implementation science lens.

PURPOSE: This study sought to determine genetics and oncology specialists' views of integrating BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in epithelial ovarian and breast cancer into routine practice. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were designed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Questions included experiences or views of the BRCA testing processes, implementation needs of oncology health professionals, perceived challenges, and future ideas for interventions to integrate genetic testing into oncology. RESULTS: Twenty-two participants were interviewed from twelve health organizations and four themes were identified: (1) embracing the shift to mainstream genetic testing, with the majority of participants viewing BRCA testing as clinically useful and routine use important for maintaining a patient centered process; (2) the need for communication networks and role delineation to integrate routine genetic testing; (3) factors that influence sustaining routine genetic testing, including ongoing training, resources and funding, real-world adaptation, system complexity, and champions; and (4) variation in system interventions for integrating routine genetic testing align to organizational context. CONCLUSION: Findings illustrate the need for integrating genetic testing into routine oncology, and that adaptation of interventions and processes is essential to sustain a feasible model. An understanding of individual and organizational implementation factors will help to prepare for future integration of routine genetic testing in other cancers.

Uptake of polygenic risk information among women at increased risk of breast cancer.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are increasingly being implemented to assess breast cancer risk. This study aimed to assess and determine factors associated with uptake of PRS among women at increased risk of breast cancer for whom genetic testing to date had been uninformative. Participants were recruited from the Variants in Practice study from which breast cancer PRS had been calculated. Four hundred women were notified by letter of the availability of their PRS and invited to complete a self-administered survey comprising several validated scales. Considering non-participants, uptake of PRS was between 61.8% and 42.1%. Multivariate logistic regression identified that women were more likely to receive their PRS if they reported greater benefits (odds ratio [OR] = 1.17, P = .011) and fewer barriers to receiving their PRS (OR = 0.80, P = .007), had completed higher level education (OR = 3.32, P = .004), and did not have daughters (0.29, P = .006). Uptake of breast cancer PRS varied according to several testing- and patient-related factors. Knowledge of these factors will facilitate the implementation of polygenic testing in clinical practice and support informed decision making by patients.

Impact of universal immunohistochemistry on Lynch syndrome diagnosis in an Australian colorectal cancer cohort.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend a step-wise screening algorithm for all colorectal carcinomas (CRC) to identify patients with Lynch syndrome (LS). AIM: To describe the frequencies of mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), BRAFV600E mutations and MLH1 methylation in resected CRC, and evaluate the impact of universal screening on LS detection. METHODS: Retrospectively, 1171 consecutive cases of resected CRC were identified between 2010 and 2017 from a large multi-centre pathology service. Testing for dMMR by immunohistochemistry (IHC) was initiated by the reporting pathologist from 2010, until universal testing was introduced in 2015. Patients with dMMR were referred to the Family Cancer Clinic (FCC) for consideration of germline mutation analysis. RESULTS: IHC was performed on 680 tumours, with abnormal expression in 124 (18%). Referral to FCC was made for 44 of the 88 patients with abnormal IHC (excluding those with BRAFV600E mutations). Of the 29 who attended, 16 underwent germline genetic testing, and LS was diagnosed in 7 with a germline mutation. After implementation of universal testing, there was a greater incidence of dMMR (17% vs 10%, P = 0.02), rate of BRAFV600E testing (79% vs 25%, P < 0.0001), and referral to FCC (61% vs 33%, P < 0.0001), but no difference in FCC attendance rate (65% vs 67%, P = 0.59) or new LS diagnoses (1.6% vs 0%, P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Universal IHC testing may increase the detection of LS, and should be implemented where possible. However, the full benefit was limited by low referral to and uptake of genetic testing, and further strategies are needed to overcome these barriers.