Search

BackgroundGermline mutations in CDH1 are associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer; lobular breast cancer also occurs excessively in families with such condition.MethodTo determine if CDH1 is a susceptibility gene for lobular breast cancer in women without a family history of diffuse gastric cancer, germline DNA was analysed for the presence of CDH1 mutations in 318 women with lobular breast cancer who were diagnosed before the age of 45 years or had a family history of breast cancer and were not known, or known not, to be carriers of germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Cases were ascertained through breast cancer registries and high-risk cancer genetic clinics (Breast Cancer Family Registry, the kConFab and a consortium of breast cancer genetics clinics in the United States and Spain). Additionally, Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification was performed for 134 cases to detect large deletions.ResultsNo truncating mutations and no large deletions were detected. Six non-synonymous variants were found in seven families. Four (4/318 or 1.3%) are considered to be potentially pathogenic through in vitro and in silico analysis.ConclusionPotentially pathogenic germline CDH1 mutations in women with early-onset or familial lobular breast cancer are at most infrequent.

The Long-Read Personalized OncoGenomics (POG) dataset comprises a cohort of 189 patient tumors and 41 matched normal samples sequenced using the Oxford Nanopore Technologies PromethION platform. This dataset from the POG program and the Marathon of Hope Cancer Centres Network includes DNA and RNA short-read sequence data, analytics, and clinical information. We show the potential of long-read sequencing for resolving complex cancer-related structural variants, viral integrations, and extrachromosomal circular DNA. Long-range phasing facilitates the discovery of allelically differentially methylated regions (aDMRs) and allele-specific expression, including recurrent aDMRs in the cancer genes RET and CDKN2A. Germline promoter methylation in MLH1 can be directly observed in Lynch syndrome. Promoter methylation in BRCA1 and RAD51C is a likely driver behind homologous recombination deficiency where no coding driver mutation was found. This dataset demonstrates applications for long-read sequencing in precision medicine and is available as a resource for developing analytical approaches using this technology., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The following authors disclose relevant potential competing interests: K.O.N., V.P., L.F.P., K.D., J.L., and S.J.M.J. received travel funding from Oxford Nanopore Technologies to present at conferences in 2022 and 2023., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Population-based BRCA testing can identify many more BRCA carriers who will be missed by the current practice of BRCA testing based on family history (FH) and clinical criteria. These carriers can benefit from screening and prevention, potentially preventing many more breast and ovarian cancers and deaths than the current practice., Objective: To estimate the incremental lifetime health outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with population-based BRCA testing compared with FH-based testing in Canada., Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing for all general population women aged 30 years compared with FH-based testing. BRCA carriers are offered risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy to reduce their ovarian cancer risk and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography screening, medical prevention, and risk-reducing mastectomy to reduce their breast cancer risk. The analyses were conducted from both payer and societal perspectives. This study was conducted from October 1, 2022, to February 20, 2024., Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were ovarian cancer, breast cancer, additional heart disease deaths, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ICER per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic-sensitivity-analyses (PSA) were undertaken to explore the uncertainty., Results: In the simulated cohort of 1 000 000 women aged 30 years in Canada, the base case ICERs of population-based BRCA testing were CAD $32 276 (US $23 402.84) per QALY from the payer perspective or CAD $16 416 (US $11 903.00) per QALY from the societal perspective compared with FH-based testing, well below the established Canadian cost-effectiveness thresholds. Population testing remained cost-effective for ages 40 to 60 years but not at age 70 years. The results were robust for multiple scenarios, 1-way sensitivity, and PSA. More than 99% of simulations from payer and societal perspectives were cost-effective on PSA (5000 simulations) at the CAD $50 000 (US $36 254.25) per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Population-based BRCA testing could potentially prevent an additional 2555 breast cancers and 485 ovarian cancers in the Canadian population, corresponding to averting 196 breast cancer deaths and 163 ovarian cancer deaths per 1 000 000 population., Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, population-based BRCA testing was cost-effective compared with FH-based testing in Canada from payer and societal perspectives. These findings suggest that changing the genetic testing paradigm to population-based testing could prevent thousands of breast and ovarian cancers.

Purpose: Approximately 5%-10% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have an inherited basis, yet uptake of genetic testing remains low and subject to disparities. This study compared two genetic testing pathways available to patients referred to a provincial cancer center, BC Cancer: a traditional hereditary cancer clinic-initiated testing (HCT) pathway and a new oncology clinic-initiated testing (OCT) pathway., Methods: Study subjects were patients with confirmed PDAC referred for genetic testing through the HCT or OCT pathway between June 1, 2020, and February 1, 2022. Charts were retrospectively reviewed for patient characteristics and testing outcomes., Results: The study population was 397 patients (HCT, n = 279 and OCT, n = 118). OCT patients were more likely to have non-European ethnicity compared with HCT patients (41.9% v 25.6%, P = .004), to have earlier-stage disease ( P = .012), and to have better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status than the HCT group ( P = .001). A total of 306 patients completed testing (77%). OCT patients had higher test completion rates than HCT patients (odds ratio, 3.74 [95% CI, 1.66 to 9.62]). Median time for results was shorter in OCT than in HCT (53 days [IQR, 44-76] v 107 days [IQR, 63.8-158.3]). Pancreatic cancer susceptibility pathogenic gene variants were identified in 8.5% (26/306)., Conclusion: The real-world observations in our study show that oncology clinic-initiated hereditary testing is more effective and faster than testing through hereditary cancer clinic referrals and reaches a more ethnically diverse population. This has important implications for publicly funded environments with limited resources for genetic counseling.

The role for routine whole genome and transcriptome analysis (WGTA) for poor prognosis pediatric cancers remains undetermined. Here, we characterize somatic mutations, structural rearrangements, copy number variants, gene expression, immuno-profiles and germline cancer predisposition variants in children and adolescents with relapsed, refractory or poor prognosis malignancies who underwent somatic WGTA and matched germline sequencing. Seventy-nine participants with a median age at enrollment of 8.8 y (range 6 months to 21.2 y) are included. Germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants are identified in 12% of participants, of which 60% were not known prior. Therapeutically actionable variants are identified by targeted gene report and whole genome in 32% and 62% of participants, respectively, and increase to 96% after integrating transcriptome analyses. Thirty-two molecularly informed therapies are pursued in 28 participants with 54% achieving a clinical benefit rate; objective response or stable disease ≥6 months. Integrated WGTA identifies therapeutically actionable variants in almost all tumors and are directly translatable to clinical care of children with poor prognosis cancers., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) is a highly lethal malignancy with a survival rate of only 12%. Surveillance is recommended for high-risk individuals (HRIs), but it is not widely adopted. To address this unmet clinical need and drive early diagnosis research, we established the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection (PRECEDE) Consortium., Methods: PRECEDE is a multi-institutional international collaboration that has undertaken an observational prospective cohort study. Individuals (aged 18-90 years) are enrolled into 1 of 7 cohorts based on family history and pathogenic germline variant (PGV) status. From April 1, 2020, to November 21, 2022, a total of 3,402 participants were enrolled in 1 of 7 study cohorts, with 1,759 (51.7%) meeting criteria for the highest-risk cohort (Cohort 1). Cohort 1 HRIs underwent germline testing and pancreas imaging by MRI/MR-cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasound., Results: A total of 1,400 participants in Cohort 1 (79.6%) had completed baseline imaging and were subclassified into 3 groups based on familial PC (FPC; n=670), a PGV and FPC (PGV+/FPC+; n=115), and a PGV with a pedigree that does not meet FPC criteria (PGV+/FPC-; n=615). One HRI was diagnosed with stage IIB PC on study entry, and 35.1% of HRIs harbored pancreatic cysts. Increasing age (odds ratio, 1.05; P<.001) and FPC group assignment (odds ratio, 1.57; P<.001; relative to PGV+/FPC-) were independent predictors of harboring a pancreatic cyst., Conclusions: PRECEDE provides infrastructure support to increase access to clinical surveillance for HRIs worldwide, while aiming to drive early PC detection advancements through longitudinal standardized clinical data, imaging, and biospecimen captures. Increased cyst prevalence in HRIs with FPC suggests that FPC may infer distinct biological processes. To enable the development of PC surveillance approaches better tailored to risk category, we recommend adoption of subclassification of HRIs into FPC, PGV+/FPC+, and PGV+/FPC- risk groups by surveillance protocols.

Hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) predispose individuals to a higher risk of developing multiple cancers. However, current screening strategies have limited ability to screen for all cancer risks. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) detects DNA fragments shed by tumour cells in the bloodstream and can potentially detect cancers early. This study aimed to explore patients' perspectives on ctDNA's utility to help inform its clinical adoption and implementation. We conducted a qualitative interpretive description study using semi-structured phone interviews. Participants were purposively sampled adult HCS patients recruited from a Canadian HCS research consortium. Thirty HCS patients were interviewed (n = 19 women, age range 20s-70s, n = 25 were white). Participants were highly concerned about developing cancers, particularly those without reliable screening options for early detection. They "just wanted more" than their current screening strategies. Participants were enthusiastic about ctDNA's potential to be comprehensive (detect multiple cancers), predictive (detect cancers early) and tailored (lead to personalized clinical management). Participants also acknowledged ctDNA's potential limitations, including false positives/negatives risks and experiencing additional anxiety. However, they saw ctDNA's potential benefits outweighing its limitations. In conclusion, participants' belief in ctDNA's potential to improve their care overshadowed its limitations, indicating patients' support for using ctDNA in HCS care., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

At least 5% of cancer diagnoses are attributed to a causal pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline genetic variant (hereditary cancer syndrome-HCS). These individuals are burdened with lifelong surveillance monitoring organs for a wide spectrum of cancers. This is associated with substantial uncertainty and anxiety in the time between screening tests and while the individuals are awaiting results. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing has recently shown potential as a non-invasive strategy for monitoring cancer. There is an opportunity for high-yield cancer early detection in HCS. To assess clinical validity of cfDNA in individuals with HCS, representatives from eight genetics centers from across Canada founded the CHARM (cfDNA in Hereditary and High-Risk Malignancies) Consortium in 2017. In this perspective, we discuss operationalization of this consortium and early data emerging from the most common and well-characterized HCSs: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, and Neurofibromatosis type 1. We identify opportunities for the incorporation of cfDNA sequencing into surveillance protocols; these opportunities are backed by examples of earlier cancer detection efficacy in HCSs from the CHARM Consortium. We seek to establish a paradigm shift in early cancer surveillance in individuals with HCSs, away from highly centralized, regimented medical screening visits and toward more accessible, frequent, and proactive care for these high-risk individuals., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests William D. Foulkes has research funding from AstraZeneca. Sophie Sun has a consulting and advisory relationship with Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Purdue, Takeda, and AstraZeneca. Kasmintan A. Schrader has a consulting and advisory relationship with and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca Canada and Pfizer and research funding from AstraZeneca Canada. Dean Regier has a consulting/advisory relationship with Roche Canada and AstraZeneca. Trevor J. Pugh has a consulting and advisory relationship with Chrysalis Biomedical Advisors and the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board, is on the scientific advisory board for Illumina, has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Merck, PACT Pharma, and SAGA Diagnostics, and has research funding from Roche (Genentech), the National Institutes of Health, and the US Department of Defense. Yvonne Bombard has ownership interests and intellectual property rights as an inventor and patent holder with Genetics Adviser. The other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Secondary findings (SFs) identified through genomic sequencing (GS) can offer a wide range of health benefits to patients. Resource and capacity constraints pose a challenge to their clinical management; therefore, clinical workflows are needed to optimise the health benefits of SFs. In this paper, we describe a model we created for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs, beyond medically actionable results, from GS. As part of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the outcomes and costs of disclosing all clinically significant SFs from GS, we consulted genetics and primary care experts to determine a feasible workflow to manage SFs. Consensus was sought to determine appropriate clinical recommendations for each category of SF and which clinician specialist would provide follow-up care. We developed a communication and referral plan for each category of SFs. This involved referrals to specialised clinics, such as an Adult Genetics clinic, for highly penetrant medically actionable findings. Common and non-urgent SFs, such as pharmacogenomics and carrier status results for non-family planning participants, were directed back to the family physician (FP). SF results and recommendations were communicated directly to participants to respect autonomy and to their FPs to support follow-up of SFs. We describe a model for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs to facilitate the utility of GS and promote the health benefits of SFs. This may serve as a model for others returning GS results transitioning participants from research to clinical settings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Germline pathogenic variants in CDH1 are associated with increased risk of diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer. Risk reduction strategies include consideration of prophylactic surgery, thereby making accurate interpretation of germline CDH1 variants critical for physicians deciding on these procedures. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) CDH1 Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) developed specifications for CDH1 variant curation with a goal to resolve variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and with ClinVar conflicting interpretations and continues to update these specifications., Methods: CDH1 variant classification specifications were modified based on updated genetic testing clinical criteria, new recommendations from ClinGen and expert knowledge from ongoing CDH1 variant curations. The CDH1 VCEP reviewed 273 variants using updated CDH1 specifications and incorporated published and unpublished data provided by diagnostic laboratories., Results: Updated CDH1 -specific interpretation guidelines include 11 major modifications since the initial specifications from 2018. Using the refined guidelines, 97% (36 of 37) of variants with ClinVar conflicting interpretations were resolved to benign, likely benign, likely pathogenic or pathogenic, and 35% (15 of 43) of VUS were resolved to benign or likely benign. Overall, 88% (239 of 273) of curated variants had non-VUS classifications. To date, variants classified as pathogenic are either nonsense, frameshift, splicing, or affecting the translation initiation codon, and the only missense variants classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic have been shown to affect splicing., Conclusions: The development and evolution of CDH1- specific criteria by the expert panel resulted in decreased uncertain and conflicting interpretations of variants in this clinically actionable gene, which can ultimately lead to more effective clinical management recommendations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MA, MR, AM, TB, CP, TP, CO, SP and RK are an employee, a trainee or a consultant for a commercial laboratory that offers genetic testing for CDH1. LZ reports that family members hold leadership positions and ownership interests in Decipher Medicine., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Germline structural variants (SVs) are challenging to resolve by conventional genetic testing assays. Long-read sequencing has improved the global characterization of SVs, but its sensitivity at cancer susceptibility loci has not been reported. Nanopore long-read genome sequencing was performed for nineteen individuals with pathogenic copy number alterations in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 and PALB2 identified by prior clinical testing. Fourteen variants, which spanned single exons to whole genes and included a tandem duplication, were accurately represented. Defining the precise breakpoints of SVs in BRCA1 and CHEK2 revealed unforeseen allelic heterogeneity and informed the mechanisms underlying the formation of recurrent deletions. Integrating read-based and statistical phasing further helped define extended haplotypes associated with founder alleles. Long-read sequencing is a sensitive method for characterizing private, recurrent and founder SVs underlying breast cancer susceptibility. Our findings demonstrate the potential for nanopore sequencing as a powerful genetic testing assay in the hereditary cancer setting., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Genomic sequencing can generate complex results, including variants of uncertain significance (VUS). In general, VUS should not inform clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the public's expected management of VUS., Methods: An online, hypothetical survey was conducted among members of the Canadian public preceded by an educational video. Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 arms, VUS or pathogenic variant in a colorectal cancer gene, and asked which types of health services they expected to use for this result. Expected health service use was compared between randomization arms, and associations between participants' sociodemographic characteristics, attitudes, and medical history were explored., Results: Among 1003 respondents (completion rate 60%), more participants expected to use each type of health service for a pathogenic variant than for a VUS. However, a considerable proportion of participants expected to request monitoring (73.4%) and consult health care providers (60.9%) for a VUS. There was evidence to support associations between expectation to use health services for a VUS with family history of genetic disease, family history of cancer, education, and attitudes toward health care and technology., Conclusion: Many participants expected to use health services for a VUS in a colorectal cancer predisposition gene, suggesting a potential disconnect between patients' expectations for VUS management and guideline-recommended care., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCSs) can improve health outcomes through cancer risk mitigation strategies. Effective communication between tested individuals and their family members is key to reducing the hereditary cancer burden. Our objective was to develop a patient portal to improve familial communication for patients undergoing HCS genetic testing, followed by an early-phase evaluation., Methods: The portal was developed following the completion of 25 semistructured interviews with individuals having undergone HCS susceptibility testing at BC Cancer. Following initial development, we recruited patients and healthcare providers to provide critical feedback informing portal refinement. Quantitative feedback was summarized using descriptive statistics, and qualitative feedback was synthesized by two reviewers who engaged in iterative discussion within the research team to prioritize recommendations for integration., Results: The patient portal includes four key components consisting of (a) targeted educational information about hereditary cancer and HBOC syndrome associated risks and testing process overview, (b) a general frequently asked questions 'FAQ' page informed by the qualitative interviews, patient partner feedback, and consultation with the HCP, (c) guidance to support familial communication including a video developed with a patient partner describing their lived experience navigating the communication process and (d) a series of lay summaries of genetic test findings to support information transfer among family members. Thirteen healthcare providers and seven patients participated in user testing. Domains within which participant recommendations were provided included presentation, educational content and process clarification., Conclusions: This investigation demonstrates the value of continual integration of patient and provider preferences through the development of tools endeavouring to assist with complex genomics-informed decision-making. Our work aims to broaden the population-wide impact of HCS testing programs by improving communication processes between probands and their potentially affected family members., Patient or Public Contribution: This work involved a patient partner who was actively engaged in all aspects of the research investigation including protocol development, review and editing of all study documentation (including that of the previously published qualitative investigation), interpretation of results, as well as reviewing and editing the manuscript. Patient partners and healthcare professionals were recruited as research participants to provide critical feedback on the patient portal., (© 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

We aimed to describe patient preferences for a broad range of secondary findings (SF) from genomic sequencing (GS) and factors driving preferences. We assessed preference data within a trial of the Genomics ADvISER, (SF decision aid) among adult cancer patients. Participants could choose from five categories of SF: (1) medically actionable; (2) polygenic risks; (3) rare diseases; (4) early-onset neurological diseases; and (5) carrier status. We analyzed preferences using descriptive statistics and drivers of preferences using multivariable logistic regression models. The 133 participants were predominantly European (74%) or East Asian or mixed ancestry (13%), female (90%), and aged > 50 years old (60%). The majority chose to receive SF. 97% (129/133) chose actionable findings with 36% (48/133) choosing all 5 categories. Despite the lack of medical actionability, participants were interested in receiving SF of polygenic risks (74%), carrier status (75%), rare diseases (59%), and early-onset neurologic diseases (53%). Older participants were more likely to be interested in receiving results for early-onset neurological diseases, while those exhibiting lower decisional conflict were more likely to select all categories. Our results highlight a disconnect between cancer patient preferences and professional guidelines on SF, such as ACMG's recommendations to only return medically actionable secondary findings. In addition to clinical evidence, future guidelines should incorporate patient preferences., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Hundreds of loci in human genomes have alleles that are methylated differentially according to their parent of origin. These imprinted loci generally show little variation across tissues, individuals, and populations. We show that such loci can be used to distinguish the maternal and paternal homologs for all human autosomes without the need for the parental DNA. We integrate methylation-detecting nanopore sequencing with the long-range phase information in Strand-seq data to determine the parent of origin of chromosome-length haplotypes for both DNA sequence and DNA methylation in five trios with diverse genetic backgrounds. The parent of origin was correctly inferred for all autosomes with an average mismatch error rate of 0.31% for SNVs and 1.89% for insertions or deletions (indels). Because our method can determine whether an inherited disease allele originated from the mother or the father, we predict that it will improve the diagnosis and management of many genetic diseases., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Genomic sequencing (GS) can reveal secondary findings (SFs), findings unrelated to the reason for testing, that can be overwhelming to both patients and providers. An effective approach for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary GS results is needed to effectively manage this large volume of results. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant primary and SF results. A genomic test report with accompanying patient and provider letters were developed in three phases: review of current clinical reporting practices, consulting with genetic and non-genetics experts, and iterative refinement through circulation to key stakeholders. The genomic test report and consultation letters present a myriad of clinically relevant GS results in distinct, tabulated sections, including primary (cancer) and secondary findings, with in-depth details of each finding generated from exome sequencing. They provide detailed variant and disease information, personal and familial risk assessments, clinical management details, and additional resources to help support providers and patients with implementing healthcare recommendations related to their GS results. The report and consultation letters represent a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant SFs to patients and providers, facilitating clinical management of GS results., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Genomic research is driving discovery for future population benefit. Limited evidence exists on immediate patient and health system impacts of research participation. This study uses real-world data and quasi-experimental matching to examine early-stage cost and health impacts of research-based genomic sequencing. British Columbia's Personalized OncoGenomics (POG) single-arm program applies whole genome and transcriptome analysis (WGTA) to characterize genomic landscapes in advanced cancers. Our cohort includes POG patients enrolled between 2014 and 2015 and 1:1 genetic algorithm-matched usual care controls. We undertake a cost consequence analysis and estimate 1-year effects of WGTA on patient management, patient survival, and health system costs reported in 2015 Canadian dollars. WGTA costs are imputed and forecast using system of equations modeling. We use Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to explore survival differences and inverse probability of censoring weighted linear regression to estimate mean 1-year survival times and costs. Non-parametric bootstrapping simulates sampling distributions and enables scenario analysis, revealing drivers of incremental costs, survival, and net monetary benefit for assumed willingness to pay thresholds. We identified 230 POG patients and 230 matched controls for cohort inclusion. The mean period cost of research-funded WGTA was $26,211 (SD: $14,191). Sequencing costs declined rapidly, with WGTA forecasts hitting $13,741 in 2021. The incremental healthcare system effect (non-research expenditures) was $5203 (95% CI: 75, 10,424) compared to usual care. No overall survival differences were observed, but outcome heterogeneity was present. POG patients receiving WGTA-informed treatment experienced incremental survival gains of 2.49 months (95% CI: 1.32, 3.64). Future cost consequences became favorable as WGTA cost drivers declined and WGTA-informed treatment rates improved to 60%. Our study demonstrates the ability of real-world data to support evaluations of only-in-research health technologies. We identify situations where precision oncology research initiatives may produce survival benefit at a cost that is within healthcare systems' willingness to pay. This economic evidence informs the early-stage healthcare impacts of precision oncology research., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Genetic testing in advanced prostate cancer is rapidly moving to become standard of care. Testing for genetic alterations in genes involved in DNA repair pathways, particularly those implicated in the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway, in patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) can inform selection of optimal therapies, as well as provide information about familial cancer risks; however, there are currently no consistent Canadian guidelines in place for genetic testing in mPCa., Methods: A multidisciplinary steering committee guided the process of an environmental scan to define the current landscape, as well as the perceived challenges, through interviews with specialists from 14 sites across Canada. The challenges most commonly identified include limited testing guidelines and protocols, inadequate education and awareness, and insufficient resources. Following the environmental scan, an expert multidisciplinary working group with pan-Canadian representation from medical oncologists, urologists, medical geneticists, genetic counsellors, pathologists, and clinical laboratory scientists convened in virtual meetings to discuss the challenges in implementation of genetic testing in mPCa across Canada., Results: Key recommendations from the working group include implementation of germline and tumor HRR testing for all patients with mPCa, with a mainstreaming model in which non-geneticist clinicians can initiate germline testing. The working group defined the roles and responsibilities of the various healthcare providers (HCPs) involved in the genetic testing pathway for mPCa patients. In addition, the educational needs for all HCPs involved in the genetic testing pathway for mPCa were defined., Conclusions: As genetic testing for mPCa becomes standard of care, additional resources and investments will be required to implement the changes that will be needed to support the necessary volume of genetic testing, to ensure equitable access, and to provide education to all stakeholders.

Purpose: In 2020, ASCO recommended that all women with epithelial ovarian cancer have germline testing for BRCA1/2 mutations, and those without a germline pathogenic variant (PV) should have somatic tumor testing to determine eligibility for a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. Consequently, the majority of patients with ovarian cancer will have both germline testing and somatic testing. An alternate strategy is tumor testing first and then germline testing if there is a PV in the tumor and/or significant family history. The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the two testing strategies., Methods: The Markov model compared the costs (US dollars) and benefits of two testing strategies for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer: (1) ASCO strategy and (2) tumor testing triage for germline testing. Data were applied from SOLO-1, and costs were from wholesale acquisition prices, Medicare, and published sources. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around various parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated the number tested and identified with germline and somatic BRCA PV for olaparib maintenance treatment annually in the US population., Results: The ASCO strategy was more effective but more costly than tumor testing triage in identifying patients for olaparib, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $281,296 US dollars per progression-free life year gained. Assuming 10,000 eligible patients with ovarian cancer annually, Monte Carlo simulation yielded comparable numbers of patients with BRCA PV in the germline and tumor with the ASCO and tumor testing triage strategies (2,080 v 2,062, respectively), but substantially higher number of patients tested using the ASCO strategy (8,052 v 3,076)., Conclusion: The ASCO strategy may identify more BRCA PVs but is not cost-effective. Tumor testing in epithelial ovarian cancer as triage for germline testing is the favored strategy in this health care system., Competing Interests: Janice S. KwonHonoraria: AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZenecaResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst) Anna V. TinkerHonoraria: AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline Canada, Eisai, Viatris, Merck SeronoConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZenecaResearch Funding: AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst)Other Relationship: AstraZenecaUncompensated Relationships: GlaxoSmithKline Katie ComptonConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZenecaResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Sophie SunConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis Kasmintan A. SchraderConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Precision RxDxResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst) Aly KarsanHonoraria: Jazz PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, PfizerNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer is highly accurate and cost-effective for identifying individuals at high risk for cancer; however, not all eligible people utilize this service. While sociodemographic factors related to the uptake of cascade genetic testing, such as age and sex, have been fairly well described in the literature, there is limited data available regarding patient ethnicity. We analyzed four years of testing data for this factor, as well as sex, age and genes tested. The patients were seen by the Hereditary Cancer Program of BC Cancer, which serves the entire population of British Columbia and Yukon, Canada. Patient ethnicity was compared to the 2016 Census data from the same region. Fisher's exact test was conducted to explore the cascade genetic testing uptakes. Chi-square test was used to compare the major ethnicity groups to Census data. There was significant variability in the uptake of cascade genetic testing in the three largest population groups (p < 0.05), with individuals of European ethnic origin overrepresented, individuals of Asian ethnic origin modestly underrepresented, and individuals of North American Indigenous origin considerably underrepresented for cascade genetic testing. The proportions represented compared to those expected from census data were significantly different for these three largest groups (p < 0.01). The majority of cascade genetic tests were for BRCA1/BRCA2 (58.8%), followed by 16.9% for Lynch syndrome genes. Most patients were female (70%), and the mean age of patients was 49 years old. This study provides further insight into uptake of cascade genetic testing by patient ethnicity. Examining patient ethnicity and cascade genetic testing rates helps to identify underserved populations. Our analysis highlights significant underrepresentation of North American Indigenous individuals for hereditary cancer cascade genetic testing, and helps recognize the need for development of culturally-safe alternatives to outreach and service promotion., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Individuals with proven hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 have elevated rates of ovarian, breast, and other cancers. If these high-risk people can be identified before a cancer is diagnosed, risk-reducing interventions are highly effective and can be lifesaving. Despite this evidence, the vast majority of Canadians with HCS are unaware of their risk. In response to this unmet opportunity for prevention, the British Columbia Gynecologic Cancer Initiative convened a research summit "Gynecologic Cancer Prevention: Thinking Big, Thinking Differently" in Vancouver, Canada on 26 November 2021. The aim of the conference was to explore how hereditary cancer prevention via population-based genetic testing could decrease morbidity and mortality from gynecologic cancer. The summit invited local, national, and international experts to (1) discuss how genetic testing could be more broadly implemented in a Canadian system, (2) identify key research priorities in this topic and (3) outline the core essential elements required for such a program to be successful. This report summarizes the findings from this research summit, describes the current state of hereditary genetic programs in Canada, and outlines incremental steps that can be taken to improve prevention for high-risk Canadians now while developing an organized population-based hereditary cancer strategy.

Tumor mutation burden (TMB) is a measure to predict patient responsiveness to immune checkpoint immunotherapy because with increased mutation frequency, the likelihood of a greater neoantigen burden is increased. Although neoantigen prediction tools exist, tumor neoantigen burden has not been adopted as a measure to predict immunotherapy response. With both measures, current guidelines are limited to the coding regions, but ectopic expression of sequences in the noncoding space may potentially be a source of neoantigens. A pan-cancer cohort of 574 advanced disease stage patients with whole genome and transcriptome sequencing was analyzed to report mutation burden and neoantigen counts within the coding and noncoding regions. The efficacy of tumor neoantigen burden, reported as tumor neoantigen count (TNC), including neoantigens derived from the expression of noncoding regions, compared with TMB as a predictor of response to immunotherapy for 80 patients who had received treatment, was evaluated. TMB was found to be the best predictor of response to immunotherapy, whereas expression-derived TNC from the noncoding regions did not improve prediction of response. Therefore, there is minimal benefit in extending the calculation of TNC to the noncoding space for the purposes of predicting response. However, it is likely that there is a wealth of neoantigens derived from the noncoding space that may impact patient outcomes and treatments., (Copyright © 2022 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We explored health professionals' views on the utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing in hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) management., Materials and Methods: A qualitative interpretive description study was conducted, using semi-structured interviews with professionals across Canada. Thematic analysis employing constant comparison was used for analysis. 2 investigators coded each transcript. Differences were reconciled through discussion and the codebook was modified as new codes and themes emerged from the data., Results: Thirty-five professionals participated and included genetic counselors (n = 12), geneticists (n = 9), oncologists (n = 4), family doctors (n = 3), lab directors and scientists (n = 3), a health-system decision maker, a surgeon, a pathologist, and a nurse. Professionals described ctDNA as "transformative" and a "game-changer". However, they were divided on its use in HCS management, with some being optimistic (optimists) while others were hesitant (pessimists). Differences were driven by views on 3 factors: (1) clinical utility, (2) ctDNA's role in cancer screening, and (3) ctDNA's invasiveness. Optimists anticipated ctDNA testing would have clinical utility for HCS patients, its role would be akin to a diagnostic test and would be less invasive than standard screening (eg imaging). Pessimistic participants felt ctDNA testing would add limited utility; it would effectively be another screening test in the pathway, likely triggering additional investigations downstream, thereby increasing invasiveness., Conclusions: Providers anticipated ctDNA testing will transform early cancer detection for HCS families. However, the contrasting positions on ctDNA's role in the care pathway raise potential practice variations, highlighting a need to develop evidence to support clinical implementation and guidelines to standardize adoption., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Introduction: The high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey., Methods and Analysis: We will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System (REB#20-035). Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT04725565., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are frequently reclassified but recontacting patients with updated results poses significant resource challenges. We aimed to characterize public and patient preferences for being recontacted with updated results. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to representative samples of the Canadian public and cancer patients. DCE attributes were uncertainty, cost, recontact modality, choice of results, and actionability. DCE data were analyzed using a mixed logit model and by calculating willingness to pay (WTP) for types of recontact. Qualitative interviews exploring recontact preferences were analyzed thematically. DCE response rate was 60% (n = 1003, 50% cancer patient participants). 31 participants were interviewed (11 cancer patients). Interviews revealed that participants expected to be recontacted. Quantitatively, preferences for how to be recontacted varied based on certainty of results. For certain results, WTP was highest for being recontacted by a doctor with updates ($1075, 95% CI: $845, $1305) and for contacting a doctor to request updates ($1038, 95% CI: $820, $1256). For VUS results, WTP was highest for an online database ($1735, 95% CI: $1224, $2247) and for contacting a doctor ($1705, 95% CI: $1102, $2307). Qualitative data revealed that preferences for provider-mediated recontact were influenced by trust in healthcare providers. Preferences for a database were influenced by lack of trust in providers and desire for control. Patients and public participants support an online database (e.g. patient portal) to recontact for VUS, improving feasibility, and provider-mediated recontact for certain results, consistent with usual care., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Next-generation sequencing assays are capable of identifying cancer patients eligible for targeted therapies and can also detect germline variants associated with increased cancer susceptibility. However, these capabilities have yet to be routinely harmonized in a single assay because of challenges with accurately identifying germline variants from tumor-only data. We have developed the Oncology and Hereditary Cancer Program targeted capture panel, which uses tumor tissue to simultaneously screen for both clinically actionable solid tumor variants and germline variants across 45 genes. Validation using 14 tumor specimens, composed of patient samples and cell lines analyzed in triplicate, demonstrated high coverage with sensitive and specific identification of single-nucleotide variants and small insertions and deletions. Average coverage across all targets remained >2000× in 198 additional patient tumor samples. Analysis of 55 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples for the detection of known germline variants within a subset of cancer-predisposition genes, including one multiexon deletion, yielded a 100% detection rate, demonstrating that germline variants can be reliably detected in tumor samples using a single panel. Combining targetable somatic and actionable germline variants into a single tumor tissue assay represents a streamlined approach that can inform treatment for patients with advanced cancers as well as identify those with potential germline variants who are eligible for confirmatory testing, but would not otherwise have been identified., (Copyright © 2021 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Uninformative germline genetic testing presents a challenge to clinical management for patients suspected to have Lynch syndrome, a cancer predisposition syndrome caused by germline variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes or EPCAM., Methods: Among a consecutive series of MMR-deficient Lynch syndrome spectrum cancers identified through immunohistochemistry-based tumor screening, we investigated the clinical utility of tumor sequencing for the molecular diagnosis and management of suspected Lynch syndrome families. MLH1-deficient colorectal cancers were prescreened for BRAF V600E before referral for genetic counseling. Microsatellite instability, MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, and somatic and germline genetic variants in the MMR genes were assessed according to an established clinical protocol., Results: Eighty-four individuals with primarily colorectal (62%) and endometrial (31%) cancers received tumor-normal sequencing as part of routine clinical genetic assessment. Overall, 27% received a molecular diagnosis of Lynch syndrome. Most of the MLH1-deficient tumors were more likely of sporadic origin, mediated by MLH1 promoter hypermethylation in 54% and double somatic genetic alterations in MLH1 (17%). MSH2-deficient, MSH6-deficient, and/or PMS2-deficient tumors could be attributed to pathogenic germline variants in 37% and double somatic events in 28%. Notably, tumor sequencing could explain 49% of cases without causal germline variants, somatic MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, or somatic variants in BRAF., Discussion: Our findings support the integration of tumor sequencing into current Lynch syndrome screening programs to improve clinical management for individuals whose germline testing is uninformative., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background: Single-arm trials are common in precision oncology. Owing to the lack of randomized counterfactual, resultant data are not amenable to comparative outcomes analyses. Difference-in-difference (DID) methods present an opportunity to generate causal estimates of time-varying treatment outcomes. Using DID, our study estimates within-cohort effects of genomics-informed treatment versus standard care on clinical and cost outcomes., Methods: We focus on adults with advanced cancers enrolled in the single-arm BC Cancer Personalized OncoGenomics program between 2012 and 2017. All individuals had a minimum of 1-year follow up. Logistic regression explored baseline differences across patients who received a genomics-informed treatment versus a standard care treatment after genomic sequencing. DID estimated the incremental effects of genomics-informed treatment on time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), time to next treatment (TTNT), and costs. TTD and TTNT correlate with improved response and survival., Results: Our study cohort included 346 patients, of whom 140 (40%) received genomics-informed treatment after sequencing and 206 (60%) received standard care treatment. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were detected across treatment groups. DID estimated that the incremental effect of genomics-informed versus standard care treatment was 102 days (95% CI: 35, 167) on TTD, 91 days (95% CI: -9, 175) on TTNT, and CAD$91,098 (95% CI: $46,848, $176,598) on costs. Effects were most pronounced in gastrointestinal cancer patients., Conclusions: Genomics-informed treatment had a statistically significant effect on TTD compared to standard care treatment, but at increased treatment costs. Within-cohort evidence generated through this single-arm study informs the early-stage comparative effectiveness of precision oncology., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Alternative models of genetic counseling are needed to meet the rising demand for genomic sequencing. Digital tools have been proposed as a method to augment traditional counseling and reduce burden on professionals; however, their role in delivery of genetic counseling is not established. This study explored the role of the Genomics ADvISER, a digital decision aid, in delivery of genomic counseling., Methods: We performed secondary analysis of 52 pretest genetic counseling sessions that were conducted over the course of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER. As part of the trial, participants were randomized to receive standard counseling or use the tool and then speak with a counselor. A qualitative interpretive description approach using thematic analysis and constant comparison was used for analysis., Results: In the delivery of genomic counseling, the Genomics ADvISER contributed to enhancing counseling by (1) promoting informed dialogue, (2) facilitating preference-sensitive deliberation, and (3) deepening personalization of decisions, all of which represent fundamental principles of patient-centered care: providing clear high-quality information, respecting patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs, and providing emotional support., Conclusion: This study demonstrates that our digital tool contributed to enhancing patient-centered care in the delivery of genomic counseling.

Genomic sequencing advances have increased the potential to identify secondary findings (SFs). Current guidelines recommend the analysis of 59 medically actionable genes; however, patient preferences indicate interest in learning a broader group of SFs. We aimed to develop an analytical pipeline for the efficient analysis and return of all clinically significant SFs. We developed a pipeline consisting of comprehensive gene lists for five categories of SFs and filtration parameters for prioritization of variants in each category. We applied the pipeline to 42 exomes to assess feasibility and efficiency. Comprehensive lists of clinically significant SF genes were curated for each category: (1) 90 medically actionable genes and 28 pharmacogenomic variants; (2) 17 common disease risk variants; (3) 3166 Mendelian disease genes, (4) 7 early onset neurodegenerative disorder genes; (5) 688 carrier status results. Analysis of 42 exomes using our pipeline resulted in a significant decrease (> 98%) in variants compared to the raw analysis (13,036.56 ± 59.72 raw variants/exome vs 161.32 ± 7.68 filtered variants/exome), and aided in time and costs savings for the overall analysis process. Our pipeline represents a critical step in overcoming the analytic challenge associated with returning all clinically relevant SFs to allow for its routine implementation in clinical practice.

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are uncommon in precision oncology. We provide an introduction and illustrative example of matching methods for evaluating precision oncology in the absence of RCTs. We focus on British Columbia's Personalized OncoGenomics (POG) program, which applies whole-genome and transcriptome analysis (WGTA) to inform advanced cancer care., Methods: Our cohort comprises 230 POG patients enrolled between 2014 and 2015 and matched POG-naive controls. We generated our matched cohort using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) and genetic matching prior to exploring survival differences., Results: We find that genetic matching outperformed PSM when balancing covariates. In all cohorts, overall survival did not significantly differ across POG and POG-naive patients (p > 0.05). Stratification by WGTA-informed treatment indicated unmatched survival differences. Patients whose WGTA information led to treatment change were at a reduced hazard of death compared to POG-naive controls in all cohorts, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 0.33 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.81) to 0.41 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.98)., Conclusion: These results signal that clinical effectiveness of precision oncology approaches will depend on rates of genomics-informed treatment change. Our study will guide future evaluations of precision oncology and support reliable effect estimation when RCT data are unavailable., (© 2020 The Authors. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Purpose: Health-care practitioners' (HCPs) preferences for returning secondary findings (SFs) will influence guideline compliance, shared decision-making, and patient health outcomes. This study aimed to estimate HCPs' preferences and willingness to support the return (WTSR) of SFs in Canada., Methods: A discrete choice experiment estimated HCPs' preferences for the following attributes: disease risk, clinical utility, health consequences, prior experience, and patient preference. We analyzed responses with an error component mixed logit model and predicted WTSR using scenario analyses., Results: Two hundred fifty participants of 583 completed the questionnaire (completion rate: 42.9%). WTSR was significantly influenced by patient preference and SF outcome characteristics. HCPs' WTSR was 78% (95% confidence interval: 74-81%) when returning SFs with available medical treatment, high penetrance, severe health consequences, and patient's preference for return. Genetics professionals had a higher WTSR than HCPs of other types when returning SFs with clinical utility and patient preference to know. HCPs >55 years of age were more likely to return SFs compared with younger HCPs., Conclusion: This study identified factors that influence WTSR of SFs and indicates that HCPs make tradeoffs between patient preference and other outcome characteristics. The results can inform clinical scenarios and models aiming to understand shared decision-making, patient and family opportunity to benefit, and cost-effectiveness.

Purpose: Structural variants (SVs) may be an underestimated cause of hereditary cancer syndromes given the current limitations of short-read next-generation sequencing. Here we investigated the utility of long-read sequencing in resolving germline SVs in cancer susceptibility genes detected through short-read genome sequencing., Methods: Known or suspected deleterious germline SVs were identified using Illumina genome sequencing across a cohort of 669 advanced cancer patients with paired tumor genome and transcriptome sequencing. Candidate SVs were subsequently assessed by Oxford Nanopore long-read sequencing., Results: Nanopore sequencing confirmed eight simple pathogenic or likely pathogenic SVs, resolving three additional variants whose impact could not be fully elucidated through short-read sequencing. A recurrent sequencing artifact on chromosome 16p13 and one complex rearrangement on chromosome 5q35 were subsequently classified as likely benign, obviating the need for further clinical assessment. Variant configuration was further resolved in one case with a complex pathogenic rearrangement affecting TSC2., Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that long-read sequencing can improve the validation, resolution, and classification of germline SVs. This has important implications for return of results, cascade carrier testing, cancer screening, and prophylactic interventions.

Background: Genetic testing in families with hereditary cancer enables identification of people most likely to benefit from intensive screening and preventive measures; however, the uptake of testing in relatives (known as cascade carrier testing) for hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes has been shown to be low. Our objective was to report rates of familial testing for hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes in a publicly funded hereditary cancer clinic in Canada., Methods: A cross-sectional retrospective database review was used to determine testing uptake between 1997 and 2016 for families served by the provincial Hereditary Cancer Program for British Columbia and Yukon. Analyses were conducted for genes associated with syndromes with an increased risk for colorectal cancer, including Lynch syndrome ( MLH1 , MSH2 , MSH6 , PMS2 and EPCAM ) and familial adenomatous polyposis ( APC ), and for additional moderate- to high-penetrance genes ( STK11 , TP53 , SMAD4 , MUTYH , PTEN and CHEK2 ). Descriptive statistics were used and all analyses were 2-tailed., Results: The study cohort included 245 index patients, with carrier testing performed in 382 relatives. The mean age at family member testing was 41.2 years, and most (61.0%) of the family members who underwent testing were women. The median time between disclosure of index cases and their family member's results was 8.3 months. Among eligible first-degree relatives, 32.6% (268/821) underwent testing in BC. Of 67 cancer diagnoses in family members, most (62.7%) occurred before genetic testing., Interpretation: A substantial proportion of people at risk for hereditary colorectal cancer do not undergo genetic testing. This gap highlights the need to explore barriers to testing and to consider interventions to promote uptake; more aggressive efforts by hereditary cancer programs are needed to reach this highest risk population., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (Copyright 2020, Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Purpose: Referrals for Lynch syndrome (LS) assessment have traditionally been based on personal and family medical history. The introduction of universal screening practices has allowed for referrals based on immunohistochemistry tests for mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression. This study aims to characterize the effect of universal screening in a publicly funded healthcare system with comparison to patients referred by traditional criteria, from January 2012 to March 2017., Methods: Patient files from the time of initiation of universal screening from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed. Patients were sorted into two groups: (a) universally screened and (b) referred by traditional methods. Mutation detection rates, analysis of traditional testing criteria met, and cascade carrier testing were evaluated., Results: The mutation detection rate of the universal screening group was higher than the traditionally referred group (45/228 (19.7%) vs 50/390 (12.5%), P = .05), though each were able to identify unique patients. An analysis of testing criteria met by each patient showed that half of referred patients from the universal screening group could not meet any traditional testing criteria., Conclusion: The implementation of universal screening in a publicly funded system will increase efficiency in detecting patients with LS. The resources available for genetic testing and counseling may be more limited in public systems, thus inclusion of secondary screening with BRAF and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing is key to further optimizing efficiency., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Women with breast cancer have a 4%-16% lifetime risk of a second primary cancer. Whether mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are enriched in patients with breast and another primary cancer over those with a single breast cancer (S-BC) is unknown., Patients and Methods: We identified pathogenic germline mutations in 17 cancer susceptibility genes in patients with BRCA1/2 -negative breast cancer in 2 different cohorts: cohort 1, high-risk breast cancer program (multiple primary breast cancer [MP-BC], n = 551; S-BC, n = 449) and cohort 2, familial breast cancer research study (MP-BC, n = 340; S-BC, n = 1,464). Mutation rates in these 2 cohorts were compared with a control data set (Exome Aggregation Consortium [ExAC])., Results: Overall, pathogenic mutation rates for autosomal, dominantly inherited genes were higher in patients with MP-BC versus S-BC in both cohorts (8.5% v 4.9% [ P = .02] and 7.1% v 4.2% [ P = .03]). There were differences in individual gene mutation rates between cohorts. In both cohorts, younger age at first breast cancer was associated with higher mutation rates; the age of non-breast cancers was unrelated to mutation rate. TP53 and MSH6 mutations were significantly enriched in patients with MP-BC but not S-BC, whereas ATM and PALB2 mutations were significantly enriched in both groups compared with ExAC., Conclusion: Mutation rates are at least 7% in all patients with BRCA1/2 mutation-negative MP-BC, regardless of age at diagnosis of breast cancer, with mutation rates up to 25% in patients with a first breast cancer diagnosed at age < 30 years. Our results suggest that all patients with breast cancer with a second primary cancer, regardless of age of onset, should undergo multigene panel testing., Competing Interests: The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/po/author-center. Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments). Joseph VijaiPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Title: Diagnosis & Treatment of ERCC3-Mutant Cancer; inventors: Joseph Vijai, Sabine Topka, Kenneth Offit; US National Stage Patent Application No.: 16/493,214; filing date: September 11, 2019 (Inst)Kasmintan A. SchraderConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, AstraZeneca Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst)Mark E. RobsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Change Health Care Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), InVitae (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Merck (Inst) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck Other Relationship: Research to Practice, Clinical Care Options, Physician Education Resource Uncompensated Relationships: Merck, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Epic Sciences Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/612669/summaryJames M. FordResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst)Judy E. GarberConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis (I), GTx (I), Helix BioPharma, Konica Minolta, Aleta BioTherapeutics (I), H3 Biomedicine (I), Kronos Bio (I) Research Funding: Novartis (I), Ambry Genetics, Invitae Genetics, Myriad Genetics Other Relationship: Susan G. Komen for the Cure (I), American Association for Cancer Research, Diane Helis Henry Medical Foundation (I), James P. Wilmot Foundation (I), Adrienne Helis Malvin Medical Research Foundation (I), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Facing our Risk of Cancer EmpoweredPayal D. ShahStock and Other Ownership Interests: Johnson & Johnson (I), Novartis (I), Novo Nordisk (I), Pfizer (I), Merck (I), Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk Consulting or Advisory Role: Tmunity TherapeuticsAngela R. BradburyConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, MerckAngela M. DeMicheleConsulting or Advisory Role: Context Therapeutics, Pfizer (I) Research Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Menarini (Inst), Silicon Biosystems (Inst)Jeffrey N. WeitzelSpeakers’ Bureau: AstraZenecaFergus J. CouchConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca Speakers’ Bureau: Ambry Genetics, QIAGEN Research Funding: Grail Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Grail, QIAGEN Other Relationship: Ambry GeneticsSusan M. DomchekHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst) Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/917904 No other potential conflicts of interest were reported., (© 2020 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Multi-gene panel testing is replacing single-gene testing for patients with suspected hereditary cancer syndromes. The detection of a hereditary cancer syndrome allows tested individuals to initiate enhanced primary and secondary prevention efforts-where available-with a view to reduce disease burden. Current policy prevents testing programmes from communicating genetic test results with potentially affected family members, yet it is well documented that tested individuals face multiple challenges in initiating such discussions with relatives., Objective: In response to this challenge, we sought patient recommendations about how to improve genetic risk communication to enhance interfamilial discussions about primary and secondary disease prevention., Design: We conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with individuals who received genetic testing through British Columbia's Hereditary Cancer Program between 2017 and 2018. Interviews were professionally transcribed and analysed using a constant comparative approach., Results: Participants described difficulty engaging in conversations with relatives who were resistant to receiving genetic risk information, when communicating with younger relatives and where participants reported strained familial relationships. Participants recommended that testing facilities provide a summary of results and implications and that resources be made available to prepare patients for challenging discussions with family members., Discussion: Our study demonstrates that individuals undergoing genetic testing for suspected hereditary cancer syndromes would benefit from additional supportive resources alongside genetic counselling. Providing this on-going support will enhance the accurate and transparent communication of risk to facilitate the uptake of cascade testing and enhanced prevention strategies., (© 2020 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Recent guidelines recommend consideration of germline testing for all newly diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The primary aim of this study was to determine the burden of hereditary cancer susceptibility in PDAC. A secondary aim was to compare genetic testing uptake rates across different modes of genetic counselling., Patients and Methods: All patients diagnosed with PDAC in the province of British Columbia, Canada referred to a population-based hereditary cancer program were eligible for multi-gene panel testing, irrespective of cancer family history. Any healthcare provider or patients themselves could refer., Results: A total of 305 patients with PDAC were referred between July 2016 and January 2019. Two hundred thirty-five patients attended a consultation and 177 completed index germline genetic testing. 25/177 (14.1%) of unrelated patients had a pathogenic variant (PV); 19/25 PV were in known PDAC susceptibility genes with cancer screening or risk-reduction implications. PDAC was significantly associated with PV in ATM (OR, 7.73; 95% CI, 3.10 to 19.33, P = 6.14E-05) when comparing age and gender and ethnicity-matched controls tested on the same platform. The overall uptake rate for index testing was 59.2% and was significantly higher with 1-on-1 consultations and group consultations compared to telehealth consultations (88.9% vs 82.9% vs 61.8%, P < .001)., Conclusion: In a prospective clinic-based cohort of patients with PDAC referred for testing irrespective of family history, germline PV were detected in 14.1%. PV in ATM accounted for half of all PVs and were significantly associated with PDAC. These findings support recent guidelines and will guide future service planning in this population., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Inherited genetic variation has important implications for cancer screening, early diagnosis, and disease prognosis. A role for germline variation has also been described in shaping the molecular landscape, immune response, microenvironment, and treatment response of individual tumors. However, there is a lack of consensus on the handling and analysis of germline information that extends beyond known or suspected cancer susceptibility in large-scale cancer genomics initiatives. As part of the Personalized OncoGenomics program in British Columbia, we performed whole-genome and transcriptome sequencing in paired tumor and normal tissues from advanced cancer patients to characterize the molecular tumor landscape and identify putative targets for therapy. Overall, our experience supports a multidisciplinary and integrative approach to germline data management. This includes a need for broader definitions and standardized recommendations regarding primary and secondary germline findings in precision oncology. Here, we propose a framework for identifying, evaluating, and returning germline variants of potential clinical significance that may have indications for health management beyond cancer risk reduction or prevention in patients and their families., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.)

New streamlined models for genetic counseling and genetic testing have recently been developed in response to increasing demand for cancer genetic services. To improve access and decrease wait times, we implemented an oncology clinic-based genetic testing model for breast and ovarian cancer patients in a publicly funded population-based health care setting in British Columbia, Canada. This observational study evaluated the oncology clinic-based model as compared to a traditional one-on-one approach with a genetic counsellor using a multi-gene panel testing approach. The primary objectives were to evaluate wait times and patient reported outcome measures between the oncology clinic-based and traditional genetic counselling models. Secondary objectives were to describe oncologist and genetic counsellor acceptability and experience. Wait times from referral to return of genetic testing results were assessed for 400 patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer undergoing genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer from June 2015 to August 2017. Patient wait times from referral to return of results were significantly shorter with the oncology clinic-based model as compared to the traditional model (403 vs. 191 days; p < 0.001). A subset of 148 patients (traditional n = 99; oncology clinic-based n = 49) completed study surveys to assess uncertainty, distress, and patient experience. Responses were similar between both models. Healthcare providers survey responses indicated they believed the oncology clinic-based model was acceptable and a positive experience. Oncology clinic-based genetic testing using a multi-gene panel approach and post-test counselling with a genetic counsellor significantly reduced wait times and is acceptable for patients and health care providers., Competing Interests: Research and funding support was provided by AstraZeneca and research support was provided by BC Cancer and the University of British Columbia. AstraZeneca had no role in the design, execution, interpretation, or writing of this study. AstraZeneca requested the report be submitted for publication. Karsan reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, grants from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Schrader reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Schrader is also supported by the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Sun reports grants from Astra Zeneca, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Astra Zeneca, outside the submitted work. Regier has received travel support from Illumina to attend meetings in Boston MA and Barcelona Spain. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.