Large-scale group genetic counseling: Evaluation of a novel service delivery model in a Canadian hereditary cancer clinic.

Increasing demand for genetic services has led to the development of streamlined genetic counseling (GC) models. We piloted large-scale group pre-test GC with up to 50 patients per group and compared this to a traditional one-on-one approach. Patients referred to the British Columbia (BC) Cancer Hereditary Cancer Program were eligible if they had: (a) family history meeting our program's referral criteria; (b) no relevant personal history of cancer; (c) no prior genetic testing in the family; and (d) no living testable relative in BC. Patient-reported outcome measures included: (a) Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS) prior to pre-test GC (T1) and at 4 weeks post-test GC (T2); (b) Satisfaction Survey after pre-test GC; and (c) the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) for patients undergoing testing (4 weeks after post-test GC). In total, 391 patients underwent GC, 184 by group and 207 by one-on-one appointments. Between May 2018 and May 2019, 6 pre-test group sessions were conducted (median number of patients per group = 28; range 15-48). 8% of patients (n = 32) declined large group GC due to personal preference for one-on-one GC. There were no statistically significant differences in MICRA and GCOS survey results when comparing the pre-test large group versus traditional pre-test one-on-one models (based on 3 MICRA subscales: p = 0.063, p = 0.612, p = 0.842; and GCOS p = 0.169). Overall, the large group pre-test counseling approach was more time-efficient with 15-48 patient group sessions conducted over a mean duration of 80 min as compared to 42 min per patient with the traditional one-on-one GC model. Large-scale group GC was feasible and acceptable to patients and represents a novel streamlined model for GC to enable timely access to cancer genetic services.

Integrating Tumor Sequencing Into Clinical Practice for Patients With Mismatch Repair-Deficient Lynch Syndrome Spectrum Cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Uninformative germline genetic testing presents a challenge to clinical management for patients suspected to have Lynch syndrome, a cancer predisposition syndrome caused by germline variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes or EPCAM. METHODS: Among a consecutive series of MMR-deficient Lynch syndrome spectrum cancers identified through immunohistochemistry-based tumor screening, we investigated the clinical utility of tumor sequencing for the molecular diagnosis and management of suspected Lynch syndrome families. MLH1-deficient colorectal cancers were prescreened for BRAF V600E before referral for genetic counseling. Microsatellite instability, MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, and somatic and germline genetic variants in the MMR genes were assessed according to an established clinical protocol. RESULTS: Eighty-four individuals with primarily colorectal (62%) and endometrial (31%) cancers received tumor-normal sequencing as part of routine clinical genetic assessment. Overall, 27% received a molecular diagnosis of Lynch syndrome. Most of the MLH1-deficient tumors were more likely of sporadic origin, mediated by MLH1 promoter hypermethylation in 54% and double somatic genetic alterations in MLH1 (17%). MSH2-deficient, MSH6-deficient, and/or PMS2-deficient tumors could be attributed to pathogenic germline variants in 37% and double somatic events in 28%. Notably, tumor sequencing could explain 49% of cases without causal germline variants, somatic MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, or somatic variants in BRAF. DISCUSSION: Our findings support the integration of tumor sequencing into current Lynch syndrome screening programs to improve clinical management for individuals whose germline testing is uninformative.

Oncology Clinic-Based Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing in a Population-Based Health Care System.

New streamlined models for genetic counseling and genetic testing have recently been developed in response to increasing demand for cancer genetic services. To improve access and decrease wait times, we implemented an oncology clinic-based genetic testing model for breast and ovarian cancer patients in a publicly funded population-based health care setting in British Columbia, Canada. This observational study evaluated the oncology clinic-based model as compared to a traditional one-on-one approach with a genetic counsellor using a multi-gene panel testing approach. The primary objectives were to evaluate wait times and patient reported outcome measures between the oncology clinic-based and traditional genetic counselling models. Secondary objectives were to describe oncologist and genetic counsellor acceptability and experience. Wait times from referral to return of genetic testing results were assessed for 400 patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer undergoing genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer from June 2015 to August 2017. Patient wait times from referral to return of results were significantly shorter with the oncology clinic-based model as compared to the traditional model (403 vs. 191 days; p < 0.001). A subset of 148 patients (traditional n = 99; oncology clinic-based n = 49) completed study surveys to assess uncertainty, distress, and patient experience. Responses were similar between both models. Healthcare providers survey responses indicated they believed the oncology clinic-based model was acceptable and a positive experience. Oncology clinic-based genetic testing using a multi-gene panel approach and post-test counselling with a genetic counsellor significantly reduced wait times and is acceptable for patients and health care providers.