Exploring Stakeholders' Perspectives on Implementing Universal Germline Testing for Colorectal Cancer: Findings From a Clinical Practice Survey.

PURPOSE: New guidelines recommend considering germline genetic testing for all patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there is a lack of data on stakeholders' perspectives on the advantages and barriers of implementing universal germline testing (UGT). This study assessed the perspectives of members of the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer (CGA-IGC) regarding the implementation of UGT for patients with CRC, including readiness, logistics, and barriers. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was sent to 317 active members of CGA-IGC. The survey included sections on demographics, clinical practice specialty, established institutional practices for testing, and questions pertaining to support of and barriers to implementing UGT for patients with CRC. RESULTS: Eighty CGA-IGC members (25%) participated, including 42 genetic counselors (53%) and 14 gastroenterologists (18%). Forty-seven (59%) reported an academic medical center as their primary work setting, and most participants (56%) had more than 10 years of clinical practice. Although most participants (73%) supported UGT, 54% indicated that changes in practice would be required before adopting UGT, and 39% indicated that these changes would be challenging to implement. There was support for both genetics and nongenetics providers to order genetic testing, and a majority (57%) supported a standardized multigene panel rather than a customized gene panel. Key barriers to UGT implementation included limited genetics knowledge among nongenetics providers, time-consuming processes for obtaining consent, ordering tests, disclosing results, and lack of insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates wide support among hereditary GI cancer experts for implementation of UGT for patients with CRC. However, alternative service delivery models using nongenetics providers should be considered to address the logistical barriers to UGT implementation, particularly the growing demand for genetic testing.

Current chemoprevention approaches in Lynch syndrome and Familial adenomatous polyposis: a global clinical practice survey.

Background: International chemoprevention preferences and approaches in Lynch syndrome (LS) and APC-associated polyposis, including Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and attenuated FAP (AFAP) have not been previously explored. Aim: To describe current chemoprevention strategies for patients with LS or FAP/AFAP (referred to collectively as FAP) practiced by members of four international hereditary cancer societies through administration of a survey. Results: Ninety-six participants across four hereditary gastrointestinal cancer societies responded to the survey. Most respondents (91%, 87/96) completed information regarding their demographics and practice characteristics relating to hereditary gastrointestinal cancer and chemoprevention clinical practices. Sixty-nine percent (60/87) of respondents offer chemoprevention for FAP and/or LS as a part of their practice. Of the 75% (72/96) of survey respondents who were eligible to answer practice-based clinical vignettes based off of their responses to ten barrier questions regarding chemoprevention, 88% (63/72) of those participants completed at least one case vignette question to further characterize chemoprevention practices in FAP and/or LS. In FAP, 51% (32/63) would offer chemoprevention for rectal polyposis, with sulindac - 300 mg (18%, 10/56) and aspirin (16%, 9/56) being the most frequently selected options. In LS, 93% (55/59) of professionals discuss chemoprevention and 59% (35/59) frequently recommend chemoprevention. Close to half of the respondents (47%, 26/55) would recommend beginning aspirin at time of commencement of the patient's first screening colonoscopy (usually at age 25yrs). Ninety-four percent (47/50) of respondents would consider a patient's diagnosis of LS as an influential factor for aspirin use. There was no consensus on the dose of aspirin (≤100 mg, >100 mg - 325 mg or 600 mg) to offer patients with LS and there was no agreement on how other factors, such as BMI, hypertension, family history of colorectal cancer, and family history of heart disease, would affect the recommendation for aspirin use. Possible harm among older patients (>70 years) was identified as the most common reason to discourage aspirin use. Conclusion: Although chemoprevention is widely discussed and offered to patients with FAP and LS by an international group of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer experts, there is significant heterogeneity in how it is applied in clinical practice.

Patterns of germline and somatic testing after universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome: A clinical practice survey of active members of the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer.

Clinical guidelines recommend universal tumor screening (UTS) of colorectal and endometrial cancers for Lynch syndrome (LS). There are limited guidelines for how to integrate germline testing and somatic tumor testing after a mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) tumor is identified. We sought to characterize current practice patterns and barriers to preferred practice among clinical providers in high-risk cancer programs. A clinical practice survey was sent to 423 active members of the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer (CGA-IGC) with a follow-up survey sent to 103 clinician responders. The survey outlined clinical vignettes and asked respondents their preferred next test. The survey intended to assess: (1) the role of patient age and family history in risk assessment and (2) barriers to preferred genetic testing. Genetic test options included targeted germline testing based on dMMR expression, germline testing for LS, germline testing with a multigene cancer panel including LS, or paired tumor/germline testing including LS. In October 2020, 117 of 423 (28%) members completed the initial survey including 103 (88%) currently active clinicians. In April 2021, a follow-up survey was sent to active clinicians, with 45 (44%) completing this second survey. After selecting their preferred next germline or paired tumor/germline tumor test based on the clinical vignette, 39% of respondents reported wanting to make a different choice for the initial genetic test without any testing barriers. The proportion of respondents choosing a different initial genetic test was dependent on the proband's age at diagnosis and specified family history. The reported barriers included patient's lack of insurance coverage, patient unable/unwilling to self-pay for proposed testing, and inadequate tumor tissue. Responders reported insurance, financial constraints, and limited tumor tissue as influencing preferred genetic testing in high-risk clinics, thus resulting in possible under-diagnosis of LS and impacting potential surveillance and cascade testing of at-risk relatives.

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.