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.

Ethical considerations for modern molecular pathology.

Molecular pathology is becoming an increasingly important discipline in oncology as molecular tumor characteristics will increasingly determine targeted clinical cancer care. In recent years, many technological advances have taken place that contributed to the development of molecular pathology. However, attention to ethical aspects has been lagging behind as illustrated by the lack of publications or professional guidelines. Existing guidelines or publications on ethical aspects of DNA sequencing are mostly aimed at germline or tumor sequencing in clinical genetics or biomedical research settings. As a result, large differences have been demonstrated in the process of tumor sequencing analysis between laboratories. In this perspective we discuss the ethical issues to consider in molecular pathology by following the process of tumor DNA sequencing analysis from the preanalytical to postanalytical phase. For the successful and responsible use of DNA sequencing in clinical cancer care, several moral requirements must be met, for example, those related to the interpretation and returning of genetic results, informed consent, and the retrospective as well as future use of genetic data for biomedical research. Many ethical issues are new to pathology or more stringent than in current practice because DNA sequencing could yield sensitive and potentially relevant data, such as clinically significant unsolicited findings. The context of molecular pathology is unique and complex, but many issues are similar to those applicable to clinical genetics. As such, existing scholarship in this discipline may be translated to molecular pathology with some adaptations and could serve as a basis for guideline development. For responsible use and further development of clinical cancer care, we recommend that pathologists take responsibility for the adequate use of molecular analyses and be fully aware and capable of dealing with the diverse, complex, and challenging aspects of tumor DNA sequencing, including its ethical issues. Copyright © 2018 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Prostate-specific antigen velocity in a prospective prostate cancer screening study of men with genetic predisposition.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA-velocity (PSAV) have been used to identify men at risk of prostate cancer (PrCa). The IMPACT study is evaluating PSA screening in men with a known genetic predisposition to PrCa due to BRCA1/2 mutations. This analysis evaluates the utility of PSA and PSAV for identifying PrCa and high-grade disease in this cohort. METHODS: PSAV was calculated using logistic regression to determine if PSA or PSAV predicted the result of prostate biopsy (PB) in men with elevated PSA values. Cox regression was used to determine whether PSA or PSAV predicted PSA elevation in men with low PSAs. Interaction terms were included in the models to determine whether BRCA status influenced the predictiveness of PSA or PSAV. RESULTS: 1634 participants had ⩾3 PSA readings of whom 174 underwent PB and 45 PrCas diagnosed. In men with PSA >3.0 ng ml-l, PSAV was not significantly associated with presence of cancer or high-grade disease. PSAV did not add to PSA for predicting time to an elevated PSA. When comparing BRCA1/2 carriers to non-carriers, we found a significant interaction between BRCA status and last PSA before biopsy (P=0.031) and BRCA2 status and PSAV (P=0.024). However, PSAV was not predictive of biopsy outcome in BRCA2 carriers. CONCLUSIONS: PSA is more strongly predictive of PrCa in BRCA carriers than non-carriers. We did not find evidence that PSAV aids decision-making for BRCA carriers over absolute PSA value alone.

Unsolicited findings of next-generation sequencing for tumor analysis within a Dutch consortium: clinical daily practice reconsidered.

Cancer patients participating in studies involving experimental or diagnostic next-generation sequencing (NGS) procedures are confronted with the possibility of unsolicited findings. The Center for Personalized Cancer Treatment (CPCT), a Dutch consortium of cancer centers, is offering centralized large-scale NGS for the discovery of somatic tumor mutations with their germline DNA as reference. The CPCT aims to give all cancer patients with advanced disease stages access to tumor DNA analysis in order to improve selection for experimental therapy. In this article, our experiences at the CPCT will serve as an example to discuss the ethical and practical aspects regarding the management of unsolicited findings in personalized cancer research and treatment. Generic issues, relevant for all researchers in this field are discussed and illustrated by description of three patients faced with an unsolicited DNA finding, while they intended to be candidate for future anticancer treatment by participating in a trial that included NGS of both somatic and germline DNA. As options for DNA analysis expand and costs decrease rapidly, more and more patients are offered large-scale NGS testing. After reviewing current recommendations in literature, we conclude that classical informed consent procedures need to be adapted to become more explicit in asking patients if they want to be informed about unsolicited findings and if so, what level of detail of genetic risk information exactly they want to be returned after the analysis.

The efficacy of a standardized questionnaire in facilitating personalized communication about problems encountered in cancer genetic counseling: design of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a personal or family history of cancer, can opt for genetic counseling and DNA-testing. Approximately 25% of these individuals experience clinically relevant levels of psychosocial distress, depression and/or anxiety after counseling. These problems are frequently left undetected by genetic counselors. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a cancer genetics-specific screening questionnaire for psychosocial problems, the 'Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer (PAHC) questionnaire' together with the Distress Thermometer, in: (1) facilitating personalized counselor-counselee communication; (2) increasing counselors' awareness of their counselees' psychosocial problems; and (3) facilitating the management of psychosocial problems during and after genetic counseling. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized controlled trial will include 264 individuals undergoing cancer genetic counseling in two family cancer clinics in the Netherlands. Participants will be randomized to either: (1) an intervention group that completes the PAHC questionnaire, the results of which are made available to the genetic counselor prior to the counseling session; or (2) a control group that completes the PAHC questionnaire, but without feedback being given to the genetic counselor. The genetic counseling sessions will be audiotaped for content analysis. Additionally, study participants will be asked to complete questionnaires at baseline, three weeks after the initial counseling session, and four months after a telephone follow-up counseling session. The genetic counselors will be asked to complete questionnaires at the start of and at completion of the study, as well as a checklist directly after each counseling session. The questionnaires/checklists of the study include items on communication during genetic counseling, counselor awareness of their clients' psychosocial problems, the (perceived) need for professional psychosocial support, cancer worries, general distress, specific psychosocial problems, satisfaction with care received, and experience using the PAHC questionnaire. DISCUSSION: This study will provide empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of a relatively brief psychosocial screening questionnaire in terms of facilitating personalized communication, increasing counselors' awareness, and optimizing management of psychosocial problems in the cancer genetic counseling setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR3205) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01562431).

Evidence for SMAD3 as a modifier of breast cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers.

INTRODUCTION: Current attempts to identify genetic modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 associated risk have focused on a candidate gene approach, based on knowledge of gene functions, or the development of large genome-wide association studies. In this study, we evaluated 24 SNPs tagged to 14 candidate genes derived through a novel approach that analysed gene expression differences to prioritise candidate modifier genes for association studies. METHODS: We successfully genotyped 24 SNPs in a cohort of up to 4,724 BRCA1 and 2,693 BRCA2 female mutation carriers from 15 study groups and assessed whether these variants were associated with risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. RESULTS: SNPs in five of the 14 candidate genes showed evidence of association with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers (P < 0.05). Notably, the minor alleles of two SNPs (rs7166081 and rs3825977) in high linkage disequilibrium (r² = 0.77), located at the SMAD3 locus (15q22), were each associated with increased breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers (relative risk = 1.25, 95% confidence interval = 1.07 to 1.45, P(trend) = 0.004; and relative risk = 1.20, 95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.40, P(trend) = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that the SMAD3 gene, which encodes a key regulatory protein in the transforming growth factor beta signalling pathway and is known to interact directly with BRCA2, may contribute to increased risk of breast cancer in BRCA2 mutation carriers. This finding suggests that genes with expression associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status are enriched for the presence of common genetic modifiers of breast cancer risk in these populations.

A novel pathogenic MLH1 missense mutation, c.112A > C, p.Asn38His, in six families with Lynch syndrome.

BACKGROUND: An unclassified variant (UV) in exon 1 of the MLH1 gene, c.112A > C, p.Asn38His, was found in six families who meet diagnostic criteria for Lynch syndrome. The pathogenicity of this variant was unknown. We aim to elucidate the pathogenicity of this MLH1 variant in order to counsel these families adequately and to enable predictive testing in healthy at-risk relatives. METHODS: We studied clinical data, microsatellite instability and immunohistochemical staining of MMR proteins, and performed genealogy, haplotype analysis and DNA testing of control samples. RESULTS: The UV showed co-segregation with the disease in all families. All investigated tumors showed a microsatellite instable pattern. Immunohistochemical data were variable among tested tumors. Three families had a common ancestor and all families originated from the same geographical area in The Netherlands. Haplotype analysis showed a common haplotype in all six families. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the MLH1 variant is a pathogenic mutation and genealogy and haplotype analysis results strongly suggest that it is a Dutch founder mutation. Our findings imply that predictive testing can be offered to healthy family members. The immunohistochemical data of MMR protein expression show that interpreting these results in case of a missense mutation should be done with caution.