Development of an Electronic Decision Aid Tool to Facilitate Mainstream Genetic Testing in Ovarian Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Multigene panel testing is an important component of cancer treatment plans and risk assessment, but there are many different panel options and choosing the most appropriate panel can be challenging for health care providers and patients. Electronic tools have been proposed to help patients make informed decisions about which gene panel to choose by considering their preferences and priorities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic decision aid (DA) tool was developed in line with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards collaboration. The multidisciplinary project team collaborated with an external health care communications agency and the MGH Cancer Center Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) to develop the DA. Surveys of genetic counselors and patients were used to scope the content, and alpha testing was used to refine the design and content. RESULTS: Surveys of genetic counselors (n = 12) and patients (n = 228) identified common themes in discussing panel size and strategies for helping patients decide between panels and in identifying confusing terms for patients and distribution of patients' choices. The DA, organized into 2 major sections, provides educational text, graphics, and videos to guide patients through the decision-making process. Alpha testing feedback from the PFAC (n = 4), genetic counselors (n = 3) and a group of lay people (n = 8) identified areas to improve navigation, simplify wording, and improve layout. CONCLUSION: The DA developed in this study has the potential to facilitate informed decision-making by patients regarding cancer genetic testing. The distinctive feature of this DA is that it addresses the specific question of which multigene panel may be most suitable for the patient. Its acceptability and effectiveness will be evaluated in future studies.

Patient decisions regarding cancer gene panel testing: An exploratory study.

This study examined factors associated with the selection of a specific multi-gene panel test by patients in a cancer genetic counseling clinic. We surveyed patients who received pre-test genetic counseling at the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Cancer Risk Assessment (CCRA) in 2019 and their genetic counselors to assess demographic and clinical characteristics, patient concerns, and session outcome. Ultimately, 228 eligible participants completed the survey, of whom 85.1% consented to genetic testing. Of those who chose testing, 56.2% selected the largest panel type available, a pan-cancer panel that included both actionable and inactionable genes. White patients were more likely than non-white patients to pursue testing. Among testers, number of testing options offered, participant educational attainment, age, and NCCN Guidelines status were associated with patient choice between four panel options. Some patient concerns, including impact of results on future cancer screening and family dynamics, were also linked to test choice. Several other participant characteristics including income, cancer diagnosis, and family structure did not appear to be predictive of testing choice. Our results confirmed the patient preference for large gene panels and identified a limited number of associations between patient characteristics and concerns and testing choice. We noted however that a significant number of participants did not choose the most commonly selected test, and that test choice is difficult to predict based on clinical and demographic factors. Our results also provide further evidence of well-documented disparities in cancer genetic testing. Study limitations do not allow our findings to be generalized to all cancer genetic counseling patients. Further research is needed to examine how and why patients choose between multiple genetic test options in the cancer setting. This study was one of the first to examine patient choice between a full spectrum of multi-gene panel options.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, including BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53, and recommended approaches to genetic counseling/testing and care strategies in individuals with these P/LP variants. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize important updates regarding: (1) a new section for transgender, nonbinary and gender diverse people who have a hereditary predisposition to cancer focused on risk reduction strategies for ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer; and (2) testing criteria and management associated with TP53 P/LP variants and Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients: experience from a single surgeon's practice in a large US Academic Center.

This study evaluated the impact of mainstreamed genetic testing (MGT) on the timing and uptake of testing in an academic breast surgeon's practice. Before September 2019 (pre-MGT phase), a breast surgery practice at Massachusetts General Hospital followed a traditional model of a pre-test consultation with a genetic counselor (GC) following a referral. After September 2019 (post-MGT phase), the same practice offered patients genetic testing in a single clinical encounter with a breast surgeon. We evaluated the waiting time between referral and GC visit in the pre-MGT phase and compared the uptake and positivity rates between both phases. In the pre-MGT phase (204 patients), the median waiting time for GC visit was seven days for patients with a newly diagnosed cancer, 211 days for patients with a personal history of cancer, and 224 days for non-cancer patients who had a family history. A total of 105 (51.5%) patients completed a GC appointment. In the post-MGT phase (202 patients), a significantly higher proportion of patients (88.1%, p < 0.001) consented to genetic testing, while the proportion of patients who tested positive was lower (pathogenic variant: 11.9% vs. 20.0%; variant of uncertain significance: 19.9% vs. 28.0%; p = 0.047). Implementing MGT can reduce the number of clinical visits, significantly shorten patients' wait time to test initiation, and increase the completion of genetic testing. Successful integration of this model relied on the genetic expertise of the breast surgeon involved and the support of the GC team.

Performance of the shared decision-making process scale for use in evaluation of hereditary cancer genetic testing decisions.

This study aimed to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, reliability, and validity of the existing four-item Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process Scale for use in evaluating genetic testing decisions. Patients from a large hereditary cancer genetics practice were invited to participate in a two-part survey after completing pre-test genetic counseling. The online survey included the SDM Process Scale and the SURE scale, a measure of decisional conflict. SDM Process scores were compared to SURE scores to test convergent validity, and respondents were sent a second survey 1 week later to assess retest reliability. The response rate was 65% (n = 259/398) and missing data was low (<1%). SDM scores ranged from zero to four with a mean of 2.3 (SD = 1.1). Retest reliability was good, with intraclass correlation of 0.84, 95% confidence interval (0.79, 0.88). No relationship was found between SDM Process scores and decisional conflict (p = 0.46), likely because 85% of participants reported no decisional conflict. The four-item SDM Process Scale demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and retest reliability, but not convergent validity with decisional conflict. These findings provide initial evidence for use of this scale to measure patient perceptions of SDM in pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer genetic testing.

A Pooled Electronic Consultation Program to Improve Access to Genetics Specialists.

Innovative service delivery models are needed to increase access to genetics specialists. Electronic consultation (e-Consult) programs can connect clinicians with specialists. At Massachusetts General Hospital, an e-Consult service was created to address genomics-related questions. In its first year, the e-Consult service triaged 153 requests and completed 122 in an average of 3.2 days. Of the 95 e-Consults with actionable recommendations, there was documentation that most ordering clinicians followed through (82%). A variety of providers used the service, although the majority (77%) were generalists. E-Consult models should be considered as one way to increase access to genetics care.

Challenges and Errors in Genetic Testing: The Fifth Case Series.

PURPOSE: In this ongoing case series, 33 genetic testing cases are documented in which tests were recommended, ordered, interpreted, or used incorrectly and/or in which clinicians faced challenges related to history/reports provided by patients or laboratories. METHODS: An invitation to submit cases of challenges or errors in genetic testing was issued to the general National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv, the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group members, as part of a case series with Precision Oncology News, and via social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). Deidentified clinical documentation was requested and reviewed when available. Thirty-three cases were submitted, reviewed, and accepted. A thematic analysis was performed. Submitters were asked to approve cases before submission. RESULTS: All cases took place in the United States, involved hereditary cancer testing and/or findings in cancer predisposition genes, and involved medical-grade genetic testing, direct-to-consumer testing, or research genetic testing. In 9 cases, test results were misinterpreted, leading to incorrect screening or risk-reducing procedures being performed/recommended. In 5 cases, incorrect or unnecessary testing was ordered/recommended. In 3 cases, incorrect clinical diagnoses were made, or opportunities for diagnoses were delayed. In 3 cases, errors or challenges arose related to medical intervention after testing or reported genetic diagnosis. In 2 cases, physicians provided incorrect information related to the inheritance pattern of a syndrome. In 2 cases, there were challenges related to the interpretation of genetic variants. In 2 cases, challenges arose after direct-to-consumer testing. One case involved test results that should never have been reported based on sample quality. In 1 case, a patient presented a falsified test result. In 5 cases, multiple errors were made. DISCUSSION: As genetic testing continues to become more complicated and common, it is critical that patients and nongenetics providers have access to accurate and timely genetic counseling information. Even as multiple medical bodies highlight the value of genetic counselors (GCs), tension exists in the genomics community as GCs work toward licensure and Medicare provider status. It is critical that health care communities leverage, rather than restrict, the expertise and experience of GCs so that patients can benefit from, and not be harmed by, genetic testing. In order to responsibly democratize genomics, it will be important for genetics and nongenetic health care providers to collaborate and use alternative service delivery models and technology solutions at point of care. To deliver on the promise of precision medicine, accurate resources and tools must be utilized.

ATM Variants in Breast Cancer: Implications for Breast Radiation Therapy Treatment Recommendations.

PURPOSE: Advances in germline genetic testing have led to a surge in identification of ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) variant carriers among breast cancer patients, raising numerous questions regarding use of breast radiation therapy (RT) in this population. METHODS: A literature search using PubMed identified articles assessing association(s) between the germline ATM variant status and the risk of toxicity after breast RT. An expert panel of breast radiation oncologists, genetic counselors, and basic scientists convened to review the association between ATM variants and radiation-induced toxicity or secondary malignancy risk and to determine any impact on breast RT recommendations. RESULTS: Carriers of pathogenic variants in ATM have a 2- to 4-fold increased risk for developing breast cancer. ATM variants do not consistently increase risks of toxicities after RT, except possibly among patients with the single nucleotide variant c5557G>A (rs1801516), in whom a small increased risk for the development of both acute and late radiation effects has been identified. In most breast cancer patients with ATM variants, the excess 5-year absolute risk of developing a secondary contralateral breast cancer (CBC) after radiation is extremely low. The exception is in women younger than 45 years old with deleterious rare ATM missense variants, who may be at higher risk for developing a radiation-induced CBC over time. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant radiation is safe for most breast cancer patients who harbor ATM variants. The possible exceptions are patients with the variant c5557G>A (rs1801516) and patients younger than 45 years old with certain rare deleterious ATM variants, who may be at higher risk for developing CBC. These latter patients should be counseled regarding this potential risk, and every effort should be made to minimize the contralateral breast dose. However, the inconsistency of published data limits precise recommendations, magnifying the need for further prospective studies and the development of a centralized database cataloging RT outcomes and genetic status.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer and recommended approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This manuscript focuses on cancer risk and risk management for BRCA-related breast/ovarian cancer syndrome and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Carriers of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant have an excessive risk for both breast and ovarian cancer that warrants consideration of more intensive screening and preventive strategies. There is also evidence that risks of prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer are elevated in these carriers. Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a highly penetrant cancer syndrome associated with a high lifetime risk for cancer, including soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, premenopausal breast cancer, colon cancer, gastric cancer, adrenocortical carcinoma, and brain tumors.

Transition to telephone genetic counseling services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted the delivery of healthcare services, including oncology. To ensure continuity of cancer genetic counseling at a large academic medical center while also promoting the safety of patients and staff, our team transitioned to fully remote telephone genetic counseling and testing services within 48 hr. We compare differences in the six weeks following the shift to telephone genetic counseling (post-COVID) to the six weeks preceding the pandemic (pre-COVID). We maintained 99% of our total visit capacity and saw a decrease in patient no-show rate from 9.5% to 7.3%. Of all patients who received telephone genetic counseling, fewer consented to genetic testing as compared to patients seen in-person prior to the pandemic (79% pre-COVID v. 72% post-COVID; p = .012). Four weeks after this cohort was closed for analysis, 96 out of 303 samples (32%) had not been received by the genetic testing laboratory, despite at least one reminder phone call to the patient. In 13 reported instances, a second sample was required (quality not sufficient, lost or mislabeled sample), thus delaying test results. We conclude that a rapid transition to remote genetic counseling and testing allowed uninterrupted access to cancer genetics services during to the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient compliance with sample return and higher rates of sample failure emerge as potential barriers to timely genetic testing under this service delivery model.

Cancer risks associated with the germline MITF(E318K) variant.

The MITF(E318K) variant confers moderate risk for cutaneous melanoma. While there are small studies suggesting that this risk is associated with other malignancies (e.g. renal cell carcinoma), little is known about the role of this variant in specifying risk for other cancers. In this study, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published data as a backdrop to a whole-exome sequence(WES)-based characterization of MITF(E318K) risk for various cancers in sporadic samples from the TCGA and several genetically-enriched patient cohorts. We found minimal evidence of MITF(E318K)'s contribution to non-melanoma cancer risk among individuals with low inherited risks of melanoma (OR 1.168; 95% CI 0.78-1.74; p = 0.454), suggesting that earlier reports of an association between this variant and other malignancies may be related to shared environmental or polygenic risk factors rather than MITF(E318K). Interestingly, an association was observed with uterine carcinosarcoma, (OR 9.24; 95% CI 2.08-37.17; p = 0.024), which was not previously described. While more research needs to be completed, this study will help update cancer screening recommendations for patients with the MITF(E318K) variant.

Identification of Somatically Acquired BRCA1/2 Mutations by cfDNA Analysis in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Plasma genotyping may identify mutations in potentially "actionable" cancer genes, such as BRCA1/2, but their clinical significance is not well-defined. We evaluated the characteristics of somatically acquired BRCA1/2 mutations in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with MBC undergoing routine cell-free DNA (cfDNA) next-generation sequencing (73-gene panel) before starting a new therapy were included. Somatic BRCA1/2 mutations were classified as known germline pathogenic mutations or novel variants, and linked to clinicopathologic characteristics. The effect of the PARP inhibitor, olaparib, was assessed in vitro, using cultured circulating tumor cells (CTCs) from a patient with a somatically acquired BRCA1 mutation and a second patient with an acquired BRCA2 mutation. RESULTS: Among 215 patients with MBC, 29 (13.5%) had somatic cfDNA BRCA1/2 mutations [nine (4%) known germline pathogenic and rest (9%) novel variants]. Known germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations were common in younger patients (P = 0.008), those with triple-negative disease (P = 0.022), and they were more likely to be protein-truncating alterations and be associated with TP53 mutations. Functional analysis of a CTC culture harboring a somatic BRCA1 mutation demonstrated high sensitivity to PARP inhibition, while another CTC culture harboring a somatic BRCA2 mutation showed no differential sensitivity. Across the entire cohort, APOBEC mutational signatures (COSMIC Signatures 2 and 13) and the "BRCA" mutational signature (COSMIC Signature 3) were present in BRCA1/2-mutant and wild-type cases, demonstrating the high mutational burden associated with advanced MBC. CONCLUSIONS: Somatic BRCA1/2 mutations are readily detectable in MBC by cfDNA analysis, and may be present as both known germline pathogenic and novel variants.

ATRAID regulates the action of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates on bone.

Nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (N-BPs), such as alendronate, are the most widely prescribed medications for diseases involving bone, with nearly 200 million prescriptions written annually. Recently, widespread use of N-BPs has been challenged due to the risk of rare but traumatic side effects such as atypical femoral fracture (AFF) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). N-BPs bind to and inhibit farnesyl diphosphate synthase, resulting in defects in protein prenylation. Yet, it remains poorly understood what other cellular factors might allow N-BPs to exert their pharmacological effects. Here, we performed genome-wide studies in cells and patients to identify the poorly characterized gene, ATRAID Loss of ATRAID function results in selective resistance to N-BP-mediated loss of cell viability and the prevention of alendronate-mediated inhibition of prenylation. ATRAID is required for alendronate inhibition of osteoclast function, and ATRAID-deficient mice have impaired therapeutic responses to alendronate in both postmenopausal and senile (old age) osteoporosis models. Last, we performed exome sequencing on patients taking N-BPs that suffered ONJ or an AFF. ATRAID is one of three genes that contain rare nonsynonymous coding variants in patients with ONJ or an AFF that is also differentially expressed in poor outcome groups of patients treated with N-BPs. We functionally validated this patient variation in ATRAID as conferring cellular hypersensitivity to N-BPs. Our work adds key insight into the mechanistic action of N-BPs and the processes that might underlie differential responsiveness to N-BPs in people.

Factors associated with referral and completion of genetic counseling in women with epithelial ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that all women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer undergo genetic testing, as the diagnosis of pathogenic variants may inform cancer survival and impact treatment options. The objective of this study was to assess factors associated with referral to genetic counseling in women with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified women with epithelial ovarian cancer from 2012 to 2017 at Massachusetts General Hospital and North Shore Medical Center, a community hospital affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated how race, age, stage, year of diagnosis, insurance status, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, and language relates to the receipt of genetic counseling. RESULTS: Of the total 276 women included, 73.9% were referred for genetic screening, of which 90.7% attended a genetic counseling visit. Older women were less likely to undergo genetic counseling (age ≥70 years: OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.94, p=0.04). Women who died within 365 days of initial oncology consult rarely reached a genetic counselor (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.24, p<0.001). Women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer were more likely to undergo counseling (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.74-6.15, p<0.001). There was no difference in receipt of genetic counseling by race, stage, year of diagnosis, insurance status, or language. CONCLUSION: Older women with epithelial ovarian cancer and those who died within 1 year of initiation of care were less likely to undergo recommended genetic counseling. Race, insurance status, and language were not identified as predictive factors, although we were limited in this assessment by small sample size.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 1.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes, and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with syndromes associated with an increased risk of these cancers. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments, examine relevant new data, and reevaluate and update recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding criteria for high-penetrance genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer beyond BRCA1/2, pancreas screening and genes associated with pancreatic cancer, genetic testing for the purpose of systemic therapy decision-making, and testing for people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

Case-control analysis identifies shared properties of rare germline variation in cancer predisposing genes.

Along with traditional effects of aging and carcinogen exposure-inherited DNA variation has substantial contribution to cancer risk. Extraordinary progress made in analysis of common variation with GWAS methodology does not provide sufficient resolution to understand rare variation. To fulfill missing classification for rare germline variation we assembled dataset of whole exome sequences from>2000 patients (selected cases tested negative for candidate genes and unselected cases) with different types of cancers (breast cancer, colon cancer, and cutaneous and ocular melanomas) matched to more than 7000 non-cancer controls and analyzed germline variation in known cancer predisposing genes to identify common properties of disease-associated DNA variation and aid the future searches for new cancer susceptibility genes. Cancer predisposing genes were divided into non-overlapping classes according to the mode of inheritance of the related cancer syndrome or known tumor suppressor activity. Out of all classes only genes linked to dominant syndromes presented significant rare germline variants enrichment in cases. Separate analysis of protein-truncating and missense variation in this list of genes confirmed significant prevalence of protein-truncating variants in cases only in loss-of-function tolerant genes (pLI < 0.1), while ultra-rare missense variants were significantly overrepresented in cases only in constrained genes (pLI > 0.9). In addition to findings in genetically enriched cases, we observed significant burden of rare variation in unselected cases, suggesting substantial role of inherited variation even in relatively late cancer manifestation. Taken together, our findings provide reference for distribution and types of DNA variation underlying inherited predisposition to some common cancer types.

Finding a Balance: Reconciling the Needs of the Institution, Patient, and Genetic Counselor for Optimal Resource Utilization.

The current practice of cancer genetic counseling is undergoing widespread change and scrutiny. While there are clinical resources for genetic counselors (GCs) regarding the delivery of cancer genetic services, there is limited literature regarding effective management of a genetic counseling clinical program. We have developed administrative tools to manage a large team of GCs at a single academic medical center over a period of increasing demand for genetics services, with the initial aim of decreasing wait time for urgent genetic counseling visits. Here, we describe the three main elements of the clinical operations: Balancing patient volume between GCs, scheduling tracks for both routine and urgent appointments, and a team of triaging GCs to ensure appropriate patient referrals. For each of these elements, we describe how they have been modified over time and present data to support the utility of these strategies. The preliminary evidence offered here suggests that these tools allow for an equitable distribution of patient volume between team members, as well as the timely and accurate scheduling of urgent patients. As a result of the experiences presented here, other genetic counseling programs grappling with similar issues should be aware that it is possible to shift clinical operations to serve certain patient populations in a more timely fashion while keeping both providers and GC staff satisfied.

Universal screening of both endometrial and colon cancers increases the detection of Lynch syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common hereditary cause of colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC). Screening of all CRCs for LS is currently recommended, but screening of ECs is inconsistent. The objective of this study was to determine the added value of screening both CRC and EC tumors in the same population. METHODS: A prospective, immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based screening program for all patients with newly diagnosed CRCs and ECs was initiated in 2011 and 2013, respectively, at 2 centers (primary and tertiary). Genetic testing was recommended for those who had tumors with absent mutS homolog 2 (MSH2), MSH6, or postmeiotoic segregation increased 2 (PMS2) expression and for those who had tumors with absent mutL homolog 1 (MLH1) expression and no v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) mutation or MLH1 promoter methylation. Amsterdam II criteria, revised Bethesda criteria, and scores from prediction models for gene mutations (the PREMM1,2,6 and PREMM5 prediction models) were ascertained in patients with LS. RESULTS: In total, 1290 patients with CRC and 484 with EC were screened for LS, and genetic testing was recommended for 137 patients (10.6%) and 32 patients (6.6%), respectively (P = .01). LS was identified in 16 patients (1.2%) with CRC and in 8 patients (1.7%) with EC. Among patients for whom genetic testing was recommended, the LS diagnosis rate was higher among those with EC (25.0% vs 11.7%, P = .052). The Amsterdam II criteria, revised Bethesda criteria, and both PREMM calculators would have missed 62.5%, 50.0%, and 12.5% of the identified patients with LS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding a universal screening program for LS to include patients who had EC identified 50% more patients with LS, and many of these patients would have been missed by risk assessment tools (including PREMM5 ). Universal screening programs for LS should include both CRC and EC. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.