Genetic risk assessment in breast and gynecologic malignancies- what's to know in 2024?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hereditary cancer risk assessment and counseling have become integral in oncology care, especially in breast and gynecologic malignancies where genetic test results impact management. However, a large number of patients who could benefit from genetic testing are not getting tested. As such, genetic risk assessment and counseling methods have had to evolve to meet the needs of this expanding patient population. RECENT FINDINGS: "Mainstreaming" genetic testing is an initiative to incorporate genetic testing into routine cancer care in lieu of the traditional genetic counseling model to improve uptake of testing while minimizing expansion of genetic counselor and clinic resources. These models have performed well in various institutions demonstrating an improvement in clinical efficacy. However, missed opportunities from the preventive care standpoint, a core value of cancer genetics risk assessment, have become apparent. The focus of these models is on the patient's cancer diagnosis and comprehensive/familial genetic risk assessment is not often completed. SUMMARY: Identifying patients at an increased risk of cancer, even in the absence of a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, is important in tailoring screening and preventive measures. As we look to the future, we need to critically approach mainstreaming and determine how to reincorporate comprehensive genetic risk assessment into our models.

Should all patients undergoing genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer syndromes be offered a multigene panel?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We aim to demonstrate why multigene panel testing (MGPT) is the superior testing option for individuals undergoing hereditary cancer genetic testing. We will outline the clinical benefits and possible limitations of MGPT for individuals at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of MGPT increases the identification of individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes. Recent studies continue to prove that MGPT is a superior option to single gene/or syndrome testing. MGPT is a cost-effective testing approach for those meeting criteria for genetic testing. Individuals interested in MGPT should understand the benefits and limitations of this approach, including an increase in variant identification and possible incidental findings. MGPT also increases the number of individuals who would benefit from cascade testing. SUMMARY: MGPT should be considered as the standard approach to hereditary cancer genetic testing as opposed to single gene or single syndrome testing. MGPT identifies a larger proportion of individuals with a hereditary cancer syndrome and leads to better management and improved uptake of cascade testing.

Implementing a Population-Based Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Program.

BACKGROUND: Personalized breast cancer risk assessment is important in identifying and managing women at increased risk for breast cancer. However, there has been little evaluation of the practical aspects of implementing a population-based program that identifies and refers high-risk patients for further evaluation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We implemented a semiautomated approach to collect personal and family history to identify women at high risk of breast cancer. On the basis of the survey, women identified as elevated risk received letters inviting them to telephone consultations with licensed breast health genetic counselors (BHGCs). High-risk women's history was verified and counseling and referrals provided, as appropriate. RESULTS: Among 20,558 women screened, 2000 (9.7%) women were identified as high risk on the basis of patient initial report. However, most (1,580) were excluded from receiving risk communication after BHGC review of risk information with the woman or because of previous attention to breast cancer risk or an abnormal mammogram. Among 420 subjects who received risk letters, 225 received a BHGC consultation. Of these 225 women, 63 were reclassified as average risk, 158 were referred to high-risk clinics, and 5 consultations were incomplete after determining that further information was needed. Of the 158 women referred to high-risk breast clinics, 51 attended an appointment. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the complex nature of a population-based breast cancer screening program in a clinical setting and shows the substantial effort needed to identify newly discovered women at high risk for breast cancer and refer them to appropriate services.

Increasing Appropriate BRCA1/2 Mutation Testing: The Role of Family History Documentation and Genetic Counseling in a Multidisciplinary Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Findings show that 5-10 % of women with a diagnosis of breast cancer (BCa) have actionable genetic mutations. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for testing to detect BRCA1/2 mutations include personal history (PH) variables such as age of 45 years or younger and a family history (FH) variables. Rates of FH documentation and overall rates of appropriate referral for genetic testing are low, ranging from about 30 to 60 %. The authors hypothesized that an upfront FH documentation and inclusion of a genetics counselor in a multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) setting would increase rates of appropriate referral for genetic testing. METHODS: The study enrolled 609 consecutive women with non-metastatic BCa seen in consultation between June 2012 and December 2015 at a multidisciplinary clinic. Rates of FH documentation and referral for genetic testing to detect BRCA1/2 mutations were assessed before and after inclusion of a genetic counselor in the MDC. RESULTS: The rates of FH documentation and appropriate referral were 100 and 89 %, respectively. Half (50 %) of the patients had only FH-based indications for testing. All the patients with PH-based indications were referred. The inclusion of a genetic counselor significantly increased appropriate referral rates among those with only FH-based indications (62 vs. 92 %) and overall (80 vs. 96 %) (p < 0.0001 for both). Among the 12 % of the patients with actionable mutations, 60 % were 45 years of age or younger, whereas 30 % had only FH-based testing indications. CONCLUSIONS: This report shows substantially higher FH documentation and appropriate genetic testing rates than prior reports. Many patients with indications for genetic testing may have only FH-based indications for testing, and this subset may account for the sizable proportion of patients with newly diagnosed BCa who have actionable mutations.