Mainstream genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer provides a solid basis for patients to make a well-informed decision about genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing need for genetic testing of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. Mainstream genetic testing provides an alternative care pathway in which non-genetic healthcare professionals offer pre-test counseling themselves. We aimed to explore the impact of mainstream genetic testing on patients' experiences, turnaround times and adherence of non-genetic healthcare professionals to the mainstream genetic testing protocol. METHODS: Patients receiving pre-test counseling at the gynecology departments between April 2018 and April 2020 were eligible to participate in our intervention group. Patients receiving pre-test counseling at the genetics department between January 2017 and April 2020 were eligible to participate in our control group. We evaluated patients' experiences with questionnaires, consisting of questions regarding knowledge, satisfaction and psychosocial outcomes. Patients in the intervention group were sent two questionnaires: one after pre-test counseling and one after receiving their DNA test result. Patients in our control group were sent one questionnaire after receiving their test result. In addition, we collected data regarding turnaround times and adherence of non-genetic healthcare professionals to the mainstream genetic testing protocol. RESULTS: Participation was 79% in our intervention group (105 out of 133 patients) and 60% in our control group (91 out of 152 patients). Knowledge regarding genetics, decisional conflict, depression, anxiety, and distress were comparable in the two groups. In the intervention group, the risk of breast cancer in patients carrying a pathogenic germline variant was discussed less often (49% versus 74% in control group, p ≤ 0.05), and the mean score of regret about the decision to have genetic testing was higher than in the control group (mean 12.9 in the intervention group versus 9.7 in the control group, p ≤ 0.05), although below the clinically relevant threshold of 25. A consent form for the DNA test and a checklist to assess family history were present for ≥ 95% of patients in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: Mainstream genetic testing is an acceptable approach to meet the increase in genetic testing among women with epithelial ovarian cancer.

Recontacting non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer patients for germline CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant testing: uptake and patient experiences.

BACKGROUND: CHEK2 has been recognized as a breast cancer risk gene with moderate effect. Women who have previously tested negative for a BRCA1/2 gene germline pathogenic variant may benefit from additional genetic testing for the CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant. The aims of this study were: 1) to assess the uptake of an active approach by recontacting BRCA1/2-negative women for additional CHEK2 c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples and 2) to explore patients' experiences with this approach. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2017, women who had been tested earlier negative for BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variants, were recontacted for additional CHEK2 c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples, free-of-charge. They received an information letter about the CHEK2 pathogenic variant and could return an informed consent form when they opted for additional genetic testing. Those in whom the CHEK2 pathogenic variant was absent, received a letter describing this result. Those who tested positive, were invited for a personal counseling at the department of genetics. On average 21 months (range 4-27) after the genetic test result, a questionnaire was sent to all identified carriers and a control group of women who tested negative for the pathogenic variant to explore patients' experiences with our approach. RESULTS: In total, 70% (N = 1666) of the N = 2377 women contacted opted for additional testing, and 66 (4%) of them proved to be carriers of the CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant. Regardless of the outcome of the genetic test, women were generally satisfied with our approach and reported that the written information was sufficient to make an informed decision about the additional CHEK2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: The uptake (70%) of our approach was considered satisfactory. Patients considered the benefits more important than the psychosocial burden. Given the rapid developments in DNA-diagnostics, our findings may support future initiatives to recontact patients about additional genetic testing when they previously tested negative for a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer gene.

Estimated Prevalence, Tumor Spectrum, and Neurofibromatosis Type 1-Like Phenotype of CDKN2A-Related Melanoma-Astrocytoma Syndrome.

Importance: Knowledge about the prevalence and tumor types of CDKN2A-related melanoma-astrocytoma syndrome (MAS) is limited and could improve disease recognition. Objective: To estimate the prevalence and describe the tumor types of MAS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study analyzed all available MAS cases from medical centers in the US (2 sites) and Europe (2 sites) and from biomedical population genomic databases (UK Biobank [United Kingdom], Geisinger MyCode [US]) between January 1, 1976, and December 31, 2020. Patients with MAS with CDKN2A germline pathogenic variants and 1 or more neural tumors were included. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disease prevalence and tumor frequency. Results: Prevalence of MAS ranged from 1 in 170 503 (n = 1 case; 95% CI, 1:30 098-1:965 887) in Geisinger MyCode (n = 170 503; mean [SD] age, 58.9 [19.1] years; 60.6% women; 96.2% White) to 1 in 39 149 (n = 12 cases; 95% CI, 1:22 396-1:68 434) in UK Biobank (n = 469 789; mean [SD] age, 70.0 [8.0] years; 54.2% women; 94.8% White). Among UK Biobank patients with MAS (n = 12) identified using an unbiased genomic ascertainment approach, brain neoplasms (4 of 12, 33%; 1 glioblastoma, 1 gliosarcoma, 1 astrocytoma, 1 unspecified type) and schwannomas (3 of 12, 25%) were the most common malignant and benign neural tumors, while cutaneous melanoma (2 of 12, 17%) and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (2 of 12, 17%) were the most common nonneural malignant neoplasms. In a separate case series of 14 patients with MAS from the US and Europe, brain neoplasms (4 of 14, 29%; 2 glioblastomas, 2 unspecified type) and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (2 of 14, 14%) were the most common neural cancers, while cutaneous melanoma (4 of 14, 29%) and sarcomas (2 of 14, 14%; 1 liposarcoma, 1 unspecified type) were the most common nonneural cancers. Cutaneous neurofibromas (7 of 14, 50%) and schwannomas (2 of 14, 14%) were also common. In 1 US family, a father and son with MAS had clinical diagnoses of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). Genetic testing of the son detected a pathogenic CDKN2A splicing variant (c.151-1G>C) and was negative for NF1 genetic alterations. In UK Biobank, 2 in 150 (1.3%) individuals with clinical NF1 diagnoses had likely pathogenic variants in CDKN2A, including 1 individual with no detected variants in the NF1 gene. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study estimates the prevalence and describes the tumors of MAS. Additional studies are needed in genetically diverse populations to further define population prevalence and disease phenotypes.

Positive experiences of healthcare professionals with a mainstreaming approach of germline genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer.

According to current guidelines, all women with epithelial ovarian cancer are eligible for genetic testing for BRCA germline pathogenic variants. Unfortunately, not all affected women are tested. We evaluated the acceptability and feasibility for non-genetic healthcare professionals to incorporate germline genetic testing into their daily practice. We developed and implemented a mainstreaming pathway, including a training module, in collaboration with various healthcare professionals and patient organizations. Healthcare professionals from 4 different hospitals were invited to participate. After completing the training module, gynecologic oncologists, gynecologists with a subspecialty training in oncology, and nurse specialists discussed and ordered genetic testing themselves. They received a questionnaire before completing the training module and 6 months after working according to the new pathway. We assessed healthcare professionals' attitudes, perceived knowledge, and self-efficacy, along with the feasibility of this new mainstream workflow in clinical practice, and evaluated the use and content of the training module. The participation rate for completing the training module was 90% (N = 19/21). At baseline and after 6 months, healthcare professionals had a positive attitude, high perceived knowledge and high self-efficacy toward discussing and ordering genetic testing. Knowledge had increased significantly after 6 months. The training module was rated with an average of 8.1 out of 10 and was considered useful. The majority of healthcare professionals (9/15) was able to discuss a genetic test in five to 10 min. After completion of a training module, non-genetic healthcare professionals feel motivated and competent to discuss and order genetic testing themselves.

Changes in empowerment and anxiety of patients and parents during genetic counselling for epilepsy.

Genetic testing and counselling are increasingly important in epilepsy care, aiming at finding a diagnosis, understanding aetiology and improving treatment and outcome. The psychological impact of genetic counselling from patients' or parents' perspectives is, however, unknown. We studied the counselee-reported outcome of genetic counselling before and after genetic testing for epilepsy by evaluating empowerment - a key outcome goal of counselling reflecting cognitive, decisional and behavioural control, emotional regulation and hope - and anxiety. We asked patients or their parents (for those <16 years or intellectually disabled) referred for genetic testing for epilepsy in two university hospitals between June 2014 and 2017 to complete the same two questionnaires at three timepoints: before and after pre-test counselling and after post-test counselling. Empowerment was measured with the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS-18); anxiety with the short State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6). A total of 63 participants (55 parents with the age of 29-66 years; 8 patients with the age of 21-42 years) were included in our study. Empowerment significantly increased during the genetic counselling trajectory with a medium effect size (p < 0.001, d = 0.57). A small but significant increase in empowerment was already seen after pre-test counselling (p = 0.038, d = 0.29). Anxiety did not change significantly during the counselling trajectory (p = 0.223, d = -0.24). Our study highlights that patients with epilepsy or their parents show a clinically relevant increase in empowerment after genetic counselling. Empowerment was already increased after pre-test counselling, suggesting the importance of counselling before initiating genetic testing for epilepsy. However, individual differences in changes in empowerment and anxiety were seen, suggesting that counselling could be further improved, based on individual needs.

Effect of a health literacy training program for surgical oncologists and specialized nurses on disparities in referral to breast cancer genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: There is an underuse of genetic testing in breast cancer patients with a lower level of education, limited health literacy or a migrant background. We aimed to study the effect of a health literacy training program for surgical oncologists and specialized nurses on disparities in referral to genetic testing. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study in a quasi-experimental pre-post (intervention) design. The intervention consisted of an online module and a group training for surgical oncologists and specialized nurses in three regions in the Netherlands. Six months pre- and 12 months post intervention, clinical geneticists completed a checklist with socio-demographic characteristics including the level of health literacy of each referred patient. We conducted univariate and logistic regression analysis to evaluate the effect of the training program on disparities in referral to genetic testing. RESULTS: In total, 3179 checklists were completed, of which 1695 were from hospital referrals. No significant differences were found in educational level, level of health literacy and migrant background of patients referred for genetic testing by healthcare professionals working in trained hospitals before (n = 795) and after (n = 409) the intervention. The mean age of patients referred by healthcare professionals from trained hospitals was significantly lower after the intervention (52.0 vs. 49.8, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The results of our study suggest that the health literacy training program did not decrease disparities in referral to genetic testing. Future research in a more controlled design is needed to better understand how socio-demographic factors influence referral to breast cancer genetic testing and what other factors might contribute.

Identification and management of Lynch syndrome in the Middle East and North African countries: outcome of a survey in 12 countries.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS), the most common inherited form of colorectal cancer (CRC), is responsible for 3% of all cases of CRC. LS is caused by a mismatch repair gene defect and is characterized by a high risk for CRC, endometrial cancer and several other cancers. Identification of LS is of utmost importance because colonoscopic surveillance substantially improves a patient's prognosis. Recently, a network of physicians in Middle Eastern and North African (ME/NA) countries was established to improve the identification and management of LS families. The aim of the present survey was to evaluate current healthcare for families with LS in this region. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed that addressed the following issues: availability of clinical management guidelines for LS; attention paid to family history of cancer; availability of genetic services for identification and diagnosis of LS; and assessment of knowledge of LS surveillance. Members of the network and authors of recent papers on LS from ME/NA and neighbouring countries were invited to participate in the survey and complete the online questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 55 individuals were invited and 19 respondents from twelve countries including Algeria, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Tunisia, and Turkey completed the questionnaire. The results showed that family history of CRC is considered in less than half of the surveyed countries. Guidelines for the management of LS are available in three out of twelve countries. The identification and selection of families for genetic testing were based on clinical criteria (Amsterdam criteria II or Revised Bethesda criteria) in most countries, and only one country performed universal screening. In most of the surveyed countries genetic services were available in few hospitals or only in a research setting. However, surveillance of LS families was offered in the majority of countries and most frequently consisted of regular colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: The identification and management of LS in ME/NA countries are suboptimal and as a result most LS families in the region remain undetected. Future efforts should focus on increasing awareness of LS amongst both the general population and doctors, and on the improvement of the infrastructure in these countries.

Increased prevalence of Barrett's esophagus in patients with MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP).

Barrett's oesophagus (BE) has been associated with an increased risk of both colorectal adenomas and colorectal cancer. A recent investigation reported a high frequency of BE in patients with adenomatous polyposis coli (APC)-associated polyposis (FAP). The aim of the present study is to evaluate the prevalence of BE in a large cohort of patients with MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP) and APC-associated adenomatous polyposis. Patients with a genetically confirmed diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) or MAP were selected and upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy reports, pathology reports of upper GI biopsies were reviewed to determine the prevalence of BE in these patients. Histologically confirmed BE was found in 7 (9.7%) of 72 patients with MAP. The mean age of diagnosis was 60.2 years (range 54.1-72.4 years). Two patients initially diagnosed with low grade dysplasia showed fast progression into high grade dysplasia and esophageal cancer, respectively. Only 4 (1.4%) of 365 patients with FAP were found to have pathologically confirmed BE. The prevalence of BE in patients with MAP is much higher than reported in the general population. We recommend that upper GI surveillance of patients with MAP should not only focus on the detection of gastric and duodenal adenomas but also on the presence of BE.

Identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling: non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend genetic counselling and DNA testing (GCT) for patients with ovarian cancer and survivors of ovarian cancer. Finding survivors of ovarian cancer is challenging. Detecting and referring them for GCT via primary care, to allow proper screening recommendations for patients and their family, may be a solution. AIM: To compare the effectiveness and acceptance of two pilot strategies directed at case finding women with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for GCT by their GP. DESIGN AND SETTING: Non-randomised comparison of the pilot implementation of two case-finding strategies for women with a history of ovarian cancer in Dutch primary care from May 2016 to April 2017. METHOD: Strategy A (unsupported) asked GPs to identify and refer eligible patients with a history of ovarian cancer. Strategy B (ICT-supported) provided GPs with information and communication technology (ICT) support to identify patients with a history of ovarian cancer electronically. The effectiveness of each strategy was assessed as the proportion of patients who were approached, referred for GCT, and seen by the clinical geneticist. Acceptance of each strategy was assessed by the intervention uptake of GP practices and GP and patient questionnaires. RESULTS: Nineteen out of 30 (63%) patients identified with a history of ovarian cancer were deemed eligible for referral for strategy A, and 39 out of 94 (41%) for strategy B. For each strategy, eight patients were referred and five (63%) were seen for GCT. The intervention uptake by GP practices was 31% (11 out of 36) for strategy A and 46% (21 out of 46) for strategy B. GPs considered 'relevance' and 'workability' as facilitators across both strategies whereas, for strategy B, technical barriers hindered implementation. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness and acceptance of both strategies for case finding of survivors of ovarian cancer in primary care for GCT is promising, but larger studies are required before wide-scale implementation is warranted.

Hereditary cancer registries improve the care of patients with a genetic predisposition to cancer: contributions from the Dutch Lynch syndrome registry.

The Dutch Hereditary Cancer Registry was established in 1985 with the support of the Ministry of Health (VWS). The aims of the registry are: (1) to promote the identification of families with hereditary cancer, (2) to encourage the participation in surveillance programs of individuals at high risk, (3) to ensure the continuity of lifelong surveillance examinations, and (4) to promote research, in particular the improvement of surveillance protocols. During its early days the registry provided assistance with family investigations and the collection of medical data, and recommended surveillance when a family fulfilled specific diagnostic criteria. Since 2000 the registry has focused on family follow-up, and ensuring the quality of surveillance programs and appropriate clinical management. Since its founding, the registry has identified over 10,000 high-risk individuals with a diverse array of hereditary cancer syndromes. All were encouraged to participate in prevention programmes. The registry has published a number of studies that evaluated the outcome of surveillance protocols for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Lynch syndrome, as well as in familial colorectal cancer. In 2006, evaluation of the effect of registration and colonoscopic surveillance on the mortality rate associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) showed that the policy led to a substantial decrease in the mortality rate associated with CRC. Following discovery of MMR gene defects, the first predictive model that could select families for genetic testing was published by the Leiden group. In addition, over the years the registry has produced many cancer risk studies that have helped to develop appropriate surveillance protocols. Hereditary cancer registries in general, and the Lynch syndrome registry in particular, play an important role in improving the clinical management of affected families.

Lynch syndrome caused by germline PMS2 mutations: delineating the cancer risk.

PURPOSE: The clinical consequences of PMS2 germline mutations are poorly understood compared with other Lynch-associated mismatch repair gene (MMR) mutations. The aim of this European cohort study was to define the cancer risk faced by PMS2 mutation carriers. METHODS: Data were collected from 98 PMS2 families ascertained from family cancer clinics that included a total of 2,548 family members and 377 proven mutation carriers. To adjust for potential ascertainment bias, a modified segregation analysis model was used to calculate colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC) risks. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated to estimate risks for other Lynch syndrome-associated cancers. RESULTS: The cumulative risk (CR) of CRC for male mutation carriers by age 70 years was 19%. The CR among female carriers was 11% for CRC and 12% for EC. The mean age of CRC development was 52 years, and there was a significant difference in mean age of CRC between the probands (mean, 47 years; range, 26 to 68 years) and other family members with a PMS2 mutation (mean, 58 years; range, 31 to 86 years; P < .001). Significant SIRs were observed for cancers of the small bowel, ovaries, breast, and renal pelvis. CONCLUSION: CRC and EC risks were found to be markedly lower than those previously reported for the other MMR. However, these risks embody the isolated risk of carrying a PMS2 mutation, and it should be noted that we observed a substantial variation in cancer phenotype within and between families, suggesting the influence of genetic modifiers and lifestyle factors on cancer risks.

Effect of routine assessment of specific psychosocial problems on personalized communication, counselors' awareness, and distress levels in cancer genetic counseling practice: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the efficacy of a cancer genetics­specific questionnaire in facilitating communication about, awareness of, and management of psychosocial problems, as well as in lowering distress levels. METHODS: Individuals referred to genetic counseling for cancer at two family cancer clinics in The Netherlands were randomly assigned to an intervention or a control group. All participants completed the psychosocial questionnaire before counseling. In the intervention group, the counselors received the results of this questionnaire before the counseling session. All sessions were audiotaped for content analysis. Primary outcomes were the frequency with which psychosocial problems were discussed, the genetic counselors' awareness of these problems, and their management. Secondary outcomes included cancer worries and psychological distress, duration and dynamics of the counseling, and satisfaction. RESULTS: The frequency with which psychosocial problems were discussed with 246 participating counselees was significantly higher in the intervention group (n = 127) than in the control group (n =119; P = .004), as was the counselors' awareness of psychosocial problems regarding hereditary predisposition (P < .001), living with cancer (P = .01), and general emotions (P < .001). Counselors initiated more discussion of psychosocial problems in the intervention group (P < .001), without affecting the length of the counseling session. No significant differences were found on management (P = .19). The intervention group reported significantly lower levels of cancer worries (p = .005) and distress (p = .02) after counseling. CONCLUSION: The routine assessment of psychosocial problems by questionnaire facilitates genetic counselors' recognition and discussion of their clients' psychosocial problems and reduces clients' distress levels.