Cancer Genetic Services Research Articles

Analysis of patient reports on the referral process to two NSW cancer genetic services

To evaluate trends and associations surrounding patient referral to cancer genetics services in NSW. The specific aims of the questionnaire used to collect information were to: (1) quantify the types of cancers being referred, (2) identify the source of referral for the patients, (3) categorise the referral as being either sought by the patient or suggested by the doctor, (4) quantify how often family history was asked, (5) determine who first raised the topic of family history, (6) identify any discouragement faced by patients, (7) clarify the cancer status of patients referred. A comparative patient-reported study was carried out using a questionnaire as the data collection tool in structured short interviews. The questions were aimed at eliciting the patient's understanding of why they were referred to the clinic, whether family history was discussed at the time of referral and who raised the issue via a series of YES/NO and open response questions. Data were collected from March 2012 to August 2012 from two different clinics, St Vincent's Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Sydney and the Hunter Family Cancer Service, Newcastle-both in New South Wales, Australia. Written consent was obtained. The study found that specialists were responsible for the majority of the 150 referrals and were more likely to be proactive in referring, as opposed to GPs (Phi and Cramer's V test). Patients reported that at the time of referral their family history was not asked in 13.5% of cases, despite being significant. In the 131 cases where family history was discussed, it was the patient on approximately 2 in 5 occasions that brought up the topic. The most common types of cancer seen were breast cancer and colorectal. At both services GP referrals were more common then specialist referrals. On three occasions patients sought referral after being notified that the bloods they had collected by their GP for genetic testing were held by the laboratory due to failure to follow protocol. Six patients reported being discouraged to attend when seeking a referral. At the time of referral 58.7% of patients were considered to be without cancer. Overall, 20% of patients requested their referral to the cancer genetics clinics. The discussion of family history in the context of familial cancer is key to accurate risk assessment and management advice. Further education of doctors is required as evidenced by the number of patients where family history was not asked and in those patients who had bloods collected by their GP without counselling.

A family history questionnaire improves detection of women at risk for hereditary gynecologic cancer: a pilot study

Pilot study to evaluate whether the use of a standardized questionnaire to document family history of cancer improves identification of women who warrant referral to cancer genetic services (CGS) for increased risk of hereditary cancer, compared to their identification in usual care. Prospective intervention study with historic control group. Gynecology outpatient clinic, Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands. The prospective intervention group consisted of new outpatients between June 1 and August 1, 2011. The historic control group consisted of new outpatients between May 1, 2009 and April 30, 2010. A standardized questionnaire based on established referral criteria for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome was completed for the intervention group. The referral rate in routine consultation, based on non-standardized family history recording, was determined retrospectively for the control group. The difference in referral rate between intervention and control group, tested by Chi square test. In the control group, 8 of 3,036 women (0.26%) were referred to CGS. In the intervention group, 209 (42%) of 500 screening questionnaires were completed. Nineteen women (9, 1%) met the referral guidelines, of which 5 were newly referred to CGS (2, 4%). Referral rates differed significantly (p<0.001) between the two groups. This pilot study shows that the routine use of a screening questionnaire may improve detection and referral rate to CGS of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer. Improving genetic literacy of physicians and use of web-site questionnaires deserve attention in future studies.

TP53 p.R337H prevalence in a series of Brazilian hereditary breast cancer families

BackgroundApproximately 5-10% of breast cancers are hereditary. Among hereditary syndromes, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC) and Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS) have received the most attention. HBOC is due to mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and is characterized by breast adenocarcinoma and/or epithelial ovarian carcinoma. LFS is associated with germline mutations in TP53; the most frequent cancer types associated with this syndrome are sarcoma, breast cancer, leukemia, brain tumors and adrenocortical carcinomas. Other cancers related to LFS are found at lower frequencies. In Brazil, especially in the southern part of the country, a specific mutation in the TP53 gene, TP53 p.R337H, occurs at a high frequency in childhood adrenocortical tumors. It has been proposed that this mutation increases breast cancer risk in southern Brazilian women.MethodsWe carried out a case-control study to determine the prevalence of the TP53 p.R337H mutation in 28 female cancer patients attended at the Cancer Genetic Counseling Service of the General Hospital of the University of São Paulo Medical School of Ribeirão Preto who fulfilled Hereditary Breast and Ovary Cancer Syndrome genetic test criteria compared to healthy woman (controls). TP53 p.R337H mutation status was determined using the High Resolution Melting (HRM) method, followed by DNA sequencing. Fisher’s test was used to compare the prevalence of TP53 p.R337H in the patient and control groups.ResultsTwo of the breast cancer cases (7.1%) and none of the controls carried the TP53 p.R337H mutation. At the time of the investigation, both cases fulfilled testing criteria for Hereditary Breast and Ovary Cancer Syndrome but not Li-Fraumeni or Li-Fraumeni-like Syndrome, based on genetic testing criteria of NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (v.1.2010).ConclusionsWe suggest that genetic screening of Brazilian breast cancer patients who fulfill Hereditary Breast and Ovary Cancer Syndrome criteria and have a family history that includes other tumors of the LFS/LFL spectrum be tested for the TP53 p.R337H mutation.

Barriers and motivators for referral of patients with suspected lynch syndrome to cancer genetic services: a qualitative study.

This article explores the views of general practitioners and specialists on their referral of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome to cancer genetic services. Using a purposive maximum variation sampling strategy, we conducted semi-structured interviews face-to-face with 28 general practitioners and specialists in public or private hospitals and specialist clinics between March and August 2011. General practitioners and specialists were recruited in a major metropolitan area in Australia. Interview transcripts were reviewed by two independent researchers, and thematic analysis was performed using NVivo10 software. The main barriers and motivators identified were: (1) clinician-related (e.g., familiarity with Lynch syndrome and family history knowledge); (2) patient-related (e.g., patients’ interests and personal experience with cancer); and (3) organizational-related (e.g., access to services, guidelines and referral pathway). Referral of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome to cancer genetic services is motivated and hindered by a range of individual, interpersonal and organizational factors. In order to improve the care and quality of life of patients and family with suspected Lynch syndrome, further research is needed to develop supportive tools for clinicians.

Are immunohistochemical (IHC)/microsatellite instability (MSI) testing necessary as part of Lynch syndrome work-up in the era of multiplex genetic testing?

425 Background: IHC for mismatch repair proteins and MSI are commonly used to direct genetic testing for Lynch Syndrome. Abnormal results in the setting of a positive family history often lead to genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. The often cumbersome process of completing IHC/MSI requires obtaining stored tissue +/- blood from a family member affected with cancer. Upfront genetic testing is not favoured due to concerns about identifying variants of uncertain significance. We performed a review of Lynch syndrome work-up in Ireland, and propose a model that is the reverse of the current international standard, and may expedite and simplify work up of these families. Methods: Data was ascertained from three cancer genetics services in Dublin and included the following variables: date of birth, date of request and reporting results for IHC, MSI and genetic tests. Time intervals were determined for LS work-up for all patients who had the process initiated in these 3 centres. Results: Probands from 50 families referred for LS work-up were included.The median time from date of IHC request to date of IHC report (total of 50 patients) was 4 weeks (range: 4 days to 36 weeks). The median time between date of IHC request to date of MSI report (n = 32 patients) was 20 weeks (range: 4 to 56 weeks). The median time from date of genetic test request to date of result (n = 9 patients) was 9 weeks (range: 2 to 26 weeks). The median time for completion of all 3 tests in one individual (n=3 patients) was 14 weeks (range: 10 to 60 weeks). Conclusions: The diagnostic pathway for Lynch syndrome is cumbersome and often lengthy. Appropriate upfront multiplex genetic testing would expedite the identification of mismatch repair gene mutation carriers. IHC/MSI testing could be used to characterise variants of uncertain significance.

Why do women not return family history forms when referred to breast cancer genetics services? A mixed‐method study

Personal and family data forms, completed by women referred to breast cancer genetics clinics, are valuable tools for verification and extension of family history, crucial steps in accurate risk evaluation. A significant minority of women do not complete and return these forms, despite reminders, even when completion is a pre-requisite for a clinic appointment. To facilitate access of women at increased familial risk of breast cancer to screening and counselling services by investigating reasons for non-return of the forms. Based on a single regional 'breast cancer family' service in the UK, Analysis of quantitative data comparing women who did not return forms (n = 55) with those who had done so (n = 59), together with qualitative evaluation of potential barriers to form-completion through semi-structured telephone interviews with a random subset of 'non-returners' (n = 23). Non-returners have higher proportions of the very young (below the age at which surveillance could be offered) and of women from lower social deprivation categories. Interviews revealed that the majority of non-returners are anxious, rather than unconcerned about their breast cancer risk and circumstances and attitudes contributed to non-compliance. Twenty-one participants confirmed that they would welcome an appointment at a 'breast cancer family' clinic, but nine did not attend for the appointment. They were significantly younger than those who attend, but were not at lower familial risk. Many women who fail to complete and return a family history form would benefit from risk assessment and genetic counselling. Several steps are suggested that might help them access the relevant services.

What hinders minority ethnic access to cancer genetics services and what may help?

Ethnic disparities in use of cancer genetics services raise concerns about equitable opportunity to benefit from familial cancer risk assessment, improved survival and quality of life. This paper considers available research to explore what may hinder or facilitate minority ethnic access to cancer genetics services. We sought to inform service development for people of South Asian, African or Irish origin at risk of familial breast, ovarian, colorectal and prostate cancers in the UK. Relevant studies from the UK, North America and Australasia were identified from six electronic research databases. Current evidence is limited but suggests low awareness and understanding of familial cancer risk among minority ethnic communities studied. Socio-cultural variations in beliefs, notably stigma about cancer or inherited risk of cancer, are identified. These factors may affect seeking of advice from providers and disparities in referral. Achieving effective cross-cultural communication in the complex contexts of both cancer and genetics counselling, whether between individuals and providers, when mediated by third party interpreters, or within families, pose further challenges. Some promising experience of facilitating minority ethnic access has been gained by introduction of culturally sensitive provider and counselling initiatives, and by enabling patient self-referral. However, further research to inform and assess these interventions, and others that address the range of challenges identified for cancer genetics services are needed. This should be based on a more comprehensive understanding of what happens at differing points of access and interaction at community, cancer care and genetic service levels.

Models of Service Delivery for Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment and Counseling

Increasing awareness of and the potentially concomitant increasing demand for cancer genetic services is driving the need to explore more efficient models of service delivery. The aims of this study were to determine which service delivery models are most commonly used by genetic counselors, assess how often they are used, compare the efficiency of each model as well as impact on access to services, and investigate the perceived benefits and barriers of each. Full members of the NSGC Familial Cancer Special Interest Group who subscribe to its listserv were invited to participate in a web-based survey. Eligible respondents were asked which of ten defined service delivery models they use and specific questions related to aspects of model use. One-hundred ninety-two of the approximately 450 members of the listserv responded (42.7%); 177 (92.2%) had provided clinical service in the last year and were eligible to complete all sections of the survey. The four direct care models most commonly used were the (traditional) face-to-face pre- and post-test model (92.2%), the face-to-face pretest without face-to-face post-test model (86.5%), the post-test counseling only for complex results model (36.2%), and the post test counseling for all results model (18.3%). Those using the face-to-face pretest only, post-test all, and post-test complex models reported seeing more new patients than when they used the traditional model and these differences were statistically significantly. There were no significant differences in appointment wait times or distances traveled by patients when comparing use of the traditional model to the other three models. Respondents recognize that a benefit of using alternative service delivery models is increased access to services; however, some are concerned that this may affect quality of care.

Could Triaging Family History of Cancer during Palliative Care Enable Earlier Genetic Counseling Intervention?

Patients are commonly referred to cancer genetics services when all affected family members are deceased. This makes genetic testing and risk assessment more difficult, reducing the benefit from screening and prophylactic treatment. Observational, retrospective, cohort study of 508 randomly selected patients referred to a regional cancer genetics unit, using review of case notes to explore whether a simple clinical "3, 2, 1" family history rule could have been used to improve timely and appropriate referrals for genetic assessment. The 3, 2, 1 criteria are: three affected relatives with the same/associated cancers, across two generations, with at least one person affected age <50 years. Most (71% [362]) genetic risk assessment referrals were in unaffected individuals and 22% (80) of these were referred after all affected family members had died, including 24% (19) who lost their last remaining affected relative in the previous year. Most (59% [301]) referrals met all 3, 2, 1 criteria, and 67% of these could have been made earlier in clinical practice. A further 23% (115) met two of the three criteria. Using a simple "3, 2, 1" family rule in cancer care and particularly in palliative care could enable earlier cancer genetic risk assessment for unaffected relatives, improving the potential to benefit from targeted screening and intervention.

Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome: If we build it, will they come? Lessons learned from the uptake of clinical genetics services by individuals with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC)

The aim of this qualitative study was to examine the experience of individuals facing a choice about genetic counselling/testing in the context of newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC). Nineteen individuals with newly diagnosed CRC, including 12 individuals who accepted genetic counselling (“acceptors”) and 7 individuals who declined genetic counselling (“refusers”), were interviewed using a standardized questionnaire guide which focused on motivations and barriers experienced in the decision process. Data were analyzed using Karlsson’s Empirical Phenomenological method of data analysis (Karlsson in Psychological qualitative research from a phenomenological perspective. Almgvist and Wiksell International, Stockholm, 1993). Three major themes were identified: facing challenges in health literacy; mapping an unknown territory; and adjusting to cancer. The study participants’ testimonies provided novel insights into potential reasons for patient non-engagement in pilot studies of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome, and allowed us to formulate several recommendations for enhancing patient engagement. Our study findings suggest that patient engagement in clinical cancer genetics services, including reflex testing for Lynch syndrome, can only be achieved by addressing current health literacy issues, by deconstructing current misconceptions related to potential abuses of genetic information, by emphasizing the clinical utility of genetic assessment, and by adapting genetics practices to the specific context of cancer care.

Iceland—Genetic Counseling Services

This brief report aims to give an overview of the history and current status of clinical genetics services in Iceland and specific genetic counseling considerations for Iceland's population. Presently, there are two part time medical geneticists and one full time genetic counselor with an MSc education from Cardiff, within the Department of Genetic and Molecular Medicine, based in Iceland's only tertiary healthcare facility, Landspitali, the National University Hospital. An oncologist (20%) also contributes to the cancer genetic counseling service. In addition, a pediatric medical geneticist has a 25% appointment at the Children's Hospital. No other health care organization offers genetic counseling, and there are no private genetic counseling services.

Improving access with a collaborative approach to cancer genetic counseling services: a pilot study

Improving access with a collaborative approach to cancer genetic counseling services: a pilot study

Implementation of a breast cancer genetic service in South Africa – lessons learned

Genetic testing for BRCA mutations has been available in the Western Cape of South Africa since 2005, but practical implementation of genetic counselling and testing has been challenging. To describe an approach to breast cancer genetic counselling and testing developed in a resource-constrained environment at Tygerberg Hospital in Cape Town, Western Cape. Genetic counselling is offered in a stepwise manner to our diverse patient population, with a focus on affected probands, and subsequent cascade testing. A record review of BRCA testing between 2005 and 2011 was performed. RESULTS; During this period 302 probands received genetic testing, with increasing numbers tested over time. Of 1 520 women treated for breast cancer since 2008, 226 (14.9%) accepted BRCA testing, and 39 tested positive (17.3% of those tested, and 2.6% of all women). Common founder mutations were detected in 11.9% of women (36/302), and comprised 73% (36/49) of mutations detected. Cascade testing increased after 2010: 16 female and 4 male family members of 19 probands accepted testing, with 6 positives being detected. A protocol-driven approach focusing on probands, with initial pre-test counselling by primary care staff has proven effective in establishing the service. Involvement of a clinical geneticist/genetic counsellor has permitted more detailed post-test counselling and increased use of cascade testing.

Issues of concern in risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing of younger breast cancer patients in Japan

About 5-10 % of breast cancer cases are considered to be hereditary, and germ line mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes have been proven to contribute to the development of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC). Breast cancer diagnosed at a young age is an indication of a higher likelihood of HBOC. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing, especially for younger women with breast cancer, have started to be an integral element of practice due to advances in gene sequencing technologies and accumulating evidence for the clinical implications of BRCA mutation status for not only early breast cancer management, but also for the patient's own and their family's next cancer risk, and proactive steps toward a risk-reducing approach. As yet, the cancer genetic service system is immature in Japan. There are several problems to be solved to improve cancer genetic services in clinical practice for breast cancer.

PWE-170 A Dedicated Colorectal Cancer Genetics Service Improves Adherence with Molecular Testing for Lynch Syndrome

IntroductionLynch Syndrome (LS) accounts for 2–3% of colorectal cancer (CRC); ~1000 cases of CRC in the United Kingdom annually. It occurs as a result of mutations in DNA repair genes;...

Using a state cancer registry to recruit young breast cancer survivors and high-risk relatives: protocol of a randomized trial testing the efficacy of a targeted versus a tailored intervention to increase breast cancer screening

BackgroundThe Michigan Prevention Research Center, the University of Michigan Schools of Nursing, Public Health, and Medicine, and the Michigan Department of Community Health propose a multidisciplinary academic-clinical practice three-year project to increase breast cancer screening among young breast cancer survivors and their cancer-free female relatives at greatest risk for breast cancer.Methods/designThe study has three specific aims: 1) Identify and survey 3,000 young breast cancer survivors (diagnosed at 20–45 years old) regarding their breast cancer screening utilization. 2) Identify and survey survivors’ high-risk relatives regarding their breast cancer screening utilization. 3) Test two versions (Targeted vs. Enhanced Tailored) of an intervention to increase breast cancer screening among survivors and relatives. Following approval by human subjects review boards, 3,000 young breast cancer survivors will be identified through the Michigan Cancer Registry and mailed an invitation letter and a baseline survey. The baseline survey will obtain information on the survivors’: a) current breast cancer screening status and use of genetic counseling; b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening; c) family health history. Based on the family history information provided by survivors, we will identify up to two high-risk relatives per survivor. Young breast cancer survivors will be mailed consent forms and baseline surveys to distribute to their selected high-risk relatives. Relatives’ baseline survey will obtain information on their: a) current breast cancer screening status and use of genetic counseling; and b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening. Young breast cancer survivors and high-risk relatives will be randomized as a family unit to receive two versions of an intervention aiming to increase breast cancer screening and use of cancer genetic services. A follow-up survey will be mailed 9 months after the intervention to survivors and high-risk relatives to evaluate the efficacy of each intervention version on: a) use of breast cancer screening and genetic counseling; b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening; c) self-efficacy in utilizing cancer genetic and screening services; d) family support related to screening; e) knowledge of breast cancer genetics; and f) satisfaction with the intervention.DiscussionThe study will enhance efforts of the state of Michigan surrounding cancer prevention, control, and public health genomics.Trial registrationNCT01612338

Addressing health disparities in cancer genetics services

Addressing health disparities in cancer genetics services

Company Profile: NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc.

NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. is a publicly traded high-complexity national clinical laboratory company that specializes in cancer diagnostic testing, focused on molecular and genomic approaches. NeoGenomics has been associated with innovation in providing world-class pathology and cancer genetic diagnostic services for pathologists, oncologists, urologists and gastroenterologists, as well as hospitals throughout the USA. The company mission also includes the integration of technical advances in molecular methodologies including computer-aided pattern-recognition mathematical algorithms in order to integrate data from multiple analytes and thereby develop precise (personalized) predictive tools for the diagnosis of disease, prognosis and response to therapy. The company has a unique business model in that it is committed to partnering with routine diagnostic laboratories, thereby providing them with the option of technical-component-only testing for esoteric biomarkers and allowing local control of the professional component, in the interpretation and the review of raw data. The company, through innovative research and development, is dedicated to the cost-effective delivery of leading-edge, high-quality patient care through the application of precise and personalized laboratory medicine.

Genetic Risk Assessments in Individuals at High Risk for Inherited Breast Cancer in the Breast Oncology Care Setting

It has become increasingly common to consider BRCA mutation status when determining optimal cancer risk management and treatment options in order to improve patient outcomes. Knowledge about the risk for hereditary cancer at or as close as possible to the time of diagnosis allows patients access to the most risk reduction options available. This paper illustrates the role of genetic risk assessment for hereditary breast cancer, using hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome as a model due to germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2. Specifically, the value of genetic counseling and testing for HBOC across the cancer prevention and control continuum is outlined as it pertains to breast cancer. In recognition of the importance of risk assessment for hereditary breast cancer, leading health professional organizations have developed specific guidelines and recommendations to providers for identification of women at increased risk for carrying a BRCA mutation. Institutional efforts specific to genetic counseling and testing have resulted in the implementation of a model driven by physician recommendation as a referral system for high-risk breast cancer patients. Establishing an infrastructure to support research, education, and outreach initiatives focused on BRCA genetic counseling and testing will provide information that can improve the delivery of cancer genetics services.

The evolution of personalized cancer genetic counseling in the era of personalized medicine

Practice changes in cancer genetic counseling have occurred to meet the demand for cancer genetic services. As cancer genetics continues to impact not only prevention strategies but also treatment decisions, current cancer genetic counseling models will need to be tailored to accommodate emerging clinical indications. These clinical indications include: surgical prophylactic bilateral mastectomy candidates, PARP-inhibitor candidates, patients with abnormal tumor screening results for Lynch syndrome, and post-test counseling patients (after genetic testing is ordered by another healthcare provider). A more personalized, multidisciplinary approach to selecting the best framework, for a given clinical indication, may become increasingly necessary in this era of personalized medicine.