BRCA testing delay during the COVID-19 pandemic: How to act?

Recently, our lab, part of a referral center in Italy, reported its experience regarding the execution of germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA) testing during the first months of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which highlights a substantial reduction (about 60%) compared with the first 2 months of the current year. This evidence appeared to be a lockdown effect due to extraordinary restriction measures to slow down the spread of SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the overall effects of the ongoing pandemic on gBRCA testing in our institution and to understand how COVID-19 has influenced testing after the complete lockdown (March 8-May 5, 2020). Additionally, we compared this year's trend with trends of the last 3 years to better monitor gBRCA testing progress. This detailed analysis highlights two important findings: (1) gBRCA testing did not increase significantly after the lockdown period (May-October 2020) compared with the lockdown period (March-April 2020), emphasizing that even after the lockdown period testing remained low. (2) Comparing the total tests per year (January-October 2017, 2018, 2019, with 2020), the impact of COVID-19 on gBRCA testing is apparent, with similarities of trends registered in 2017. These evidences reveal a gBRCA testing delay for cancer patients and healthy patients at this moment, and the new era of gBRCA testing in the management of ovarian, breast, pancreas and prostate cancer patients has been seriously questioned due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As consequence, we underline that measures to guarantee oncogenetic testing (e.g., gBRCA testing) along with new diagnostic/clinic strategies are mandatory. For these reasons, several proposals are presented in this study.

Regret among primary care physicians: a survey of diagnostic decisions.

BACKGROUND: Experienced and anticipated regret influence physicians' decision-making. In medicine, diagnostic decisions and diagnostic errors can have a severe impact on both patients and physicians. Little empirical research exists on regret experienced by physicians when they make diagnostic decisions in primary care that later prove inappropriate or incorrect. The aim of this study was to explore the experience of regret following diagnostic decisions in primary care. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we used an online questionnaire on a sample of German primary care physicians. We asked participants to report on cases in which the final diagnosis differed from their original opinion, and in which treatment was at the very least delayed, possibly resulting in harm to the patient. We asked about original and final diagnoses, illness trajectories, and the reactions of other physicians, patients and relatives. We used thematic analysis to assess the data, supported by MAXQDA 11 and Microsoft Excel 2016. RESULTS: 29 GPs described one case each (14 female/15 male patients, aged 1.5-80 years, response rate < 1%). In 26 of 29 cases, the final diagnosis was more serious than the original diagnosis. In two cases, the diagnoses were equally serious, and in one case less serious. Clinical trajectories and the reactions of patients and relatives differed widely. Although only one third of cases involved preventable harm to patients, the vast majority (27 of 29) of physicians expressed deep feelings of regret. CONCLUSION: Even if harm to patients is unavoidable, regret following diagnostic decisions can be devastating for clinicians, making them 'second victims'. Procedures and tools are needed to analyse cases involving undesirable diagnostic events, so that 'true' diagnostic errors, in which harm could have been prevented, can be distinguished from others. Further studies should also explore how physicians can be supported in dealing with such events in order to prevent them from practicing defensive medicine.

Meeting Patients' Right to the Correct Diagnosis: Ongoing International Initiatives on Undiagnosed Rare Diseases and Ethical and Social Issues.

The time required to reach a correct diagnosis is a key concern for rare disease (RD) patients. Diagnostic delay can be intolerably long, often described as an "odyssey" and, for some, a diagnosis may remain frustratingly elusive. The International Rare Disease Research Consortium proposed, as ultimate goal for 2017⁻2027, to enable all people with a suspected RD to be diagnosed within one year of presentation, if the disorder is known. Subsequently, unsolved cases would enter a globally coordinated diagnostic and research pipeline. In-depth analysis of the genotype through next generation sequencing, together with a standardized in-depth phenotype description and sophisticated high-throughput approaches, have been applied as diagnostic tools to increase the chance of a timely and accurate diagnosis. The success of this approach is evident in the Orphanet database. From 2010 to March 2017 over 600 new RDs and roughly 3600 linked genes have been described and identified. However, combination of -omics and phenotype data, as well as international sharing of this information, has raised ethical concerns. Values to be assessed include not only patient autonomy but also family implications, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, solidarity and reciprocity, which must be respected and promoted and, at the same time, balanced among each other. In this work we suggest that, to maximize patients' involvement in the search for a diagnosis and identification of new causative genes, undiagnosed patients should have the possibility to: (1) actively participate in the description of their phenotype; (2) choose the level of visibility of their profile in matchmaking databases; (3) express their preferences regarding return of new findings, in particular which level of Variant of Unknown Significance (VUS) significance should be considered relevant to them. The quality of the relationship between individual patients and physicians, and between the patient community and the scientific community, is critically important for optimizing the use of available data and enabling international collaboration in order to provide a diagnosis, and the attached support, to unsolved cases. The contribution of patients to collecting and coding data comprehensively is critical for efficient use of data downstream of data collection.

Palliative care for children with a yet undiagnosed syndrome.

The number of children without a diagnosis in pediatric palliative home care and the process of decision-making in these children are widely unknown. The study was conducted as single-center retrospective cohort study. Between January 2013 and September 2016, 198 children and young adults were cared for; 27 (13.6%) of these were without a clear diagnosis at the start of pediatric palliative home care. A definite diagnosis was ultimately achieved in three children. Median age was 7 years (0-25), duration of care 569 days (2-2638), and number of home visits 7.5 (2-46). Most patients are still alive (19; 70.4%). Median number of drugs administered was eight (range 2-19); antiepileptics were given most frequently. Despite the lack of a clear diagnosis (and thus prognosis), 13 (48.1%) parents faced with their critically ill and clinically deteriorating children decided in favor of a DNAR order. Comparing this with 15 brain-injured children, signs, symptoms, and supportive needs were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Children without a clear diagnosis are relatively common in pediatric palliative care and have-like all other patients-the right to receive optimized and symptom-adapted palliative care. Parents are less likely to choose treatment limitation for children who lack a definitive diagnosis. What is Known: • A clear diagnosis is usually considered important for best-practice pediatric palliative care (PPC) including advanced care planning (ACP). • Timely initiation of pediatric palliative care (PPC) is highly recommended in children with life-limiting conditions. What is New: • SWAN (syndrome without a name) children show similar signs and symptoms (mostly neurological) and have similar supportive needs as brain-injured children. • Defining treatment limitations in advance care planning is more difficult for parents of SWAN compared to brain-injured children.

Child with idiopathic pulmonary hemosiderosis: a case report from Pakistan with multiple ethical and moral issues.

This report discusses the case of a young Pakistani child diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary hemosiderosis (IPH). The key features of IPH were iron deficiency anemia and pulmonary symptoms due to recurrent pulmonary hemorrhages. The child showed complications of the disease process because of late diagnosis. Because various ethical and moral issues were associated with the diagnosis and management of IPH, this case provides insights about the care burden of health care professionals and a child's parents in a Pakistani pediatric setting. During the course of the child's treatment at one of the private tertiary care settings of Karachi, Pakistan, the key challenges were as follows: declaring the diagnosis to the parents, dealing with the request of the child's parents for withdrawal of ventilatory support and withholding treatment, deciding the code status of the child, and ensuring the quality of the child's life after discharge from the hospital. It was learned from this case report that shared decision making and open communication with the child's family enabled the pediatric health care professionals to determine what was in the best interest of the child, resulting in provision of effective palliative care to the child. Moreover, it was realized that early detection of the disease and availability of hospice care can facilitate palliative care of children diagnosed with IPH.

Are GPs under-investigating older patients presenting with symptoms of ovarian cancer? Observational study using General Practice Research Database.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that older patients in the United Kingdom are not benefiting as much from improvements in cancer treatments as their younger counterparts. We investigate whether this might be partly due to differential referral rates using ovarian cancer as an example. METHODS: From the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), we identified all women aged 40-80 years on 1 June 2002 with a Read code for ovarian cancer between 1 June 2002 and 31 May 2007. Using these records, we compared the GPRD incidence of ovarian cancer with rates compiled from the UK cancer registries and investigated the relationship between age and coded investigations for suspected ovarian cancer. RESULTS: The GPRD rates peaked earlier, at 70-74, and were lower than registry rates for nearly all ages particularly for patients over 59. The proportion investigated or referred by the GP decreased significantly with age and delays between first coded symptom and investigation showed a U-shaped distribution by age. CONCLUSIONS: GPs appear to be less likely to recognise and to refer patients presenting with ovarian cancer as they get older. If our findings extend to other cancers, lack of or delays in referral to secondary care may partly explain poor UK cancer mortality rates of older people.