Search

BACKGROUND: Many families and individuals do not meet criteria for a known hereditary cancer syndrome but display unusual clusters of cancers. These families may carry pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes and be at higher risk for developing cancer. METHODS: This multi-centre prospective study recruited 195 cancer-affected participants suspected to have a hereditary cancer syndrome for whom previous clinical targeted genetic testing was either not informative or not available. To identify pathogenic disease-causing variants explaining participant presentation, germline whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and a comprehensive cancer virtual gene panel analysis were undertaken. RESULTS: Pathogenic variants consistent with the presenting cancer(s) were identified in 5.1% (10/195) of participants and pathogenic variants considered secondary findings with potential risk management implications were identified in another 9.7% (19/195) of participants. Health economic analysis estimated the marginal cost per case with an actionable variant was significantly lower for upfront WGS with virtual panel ($8744AUD) compared to standard testing followed by WGS ($24,894AUD). Financial analysis suggests that national adoption of diagnostic WGS testing would require a ninefold increase in government annual expenditure compared to conventional testing. CONCLUSIONS: These findings make a case for replacing conventional testing with WGS to deliver clinically important benefits for cancer patients and families. The uptake of such an approach will depend on the perspectives of different payers on affordability.

INTRODUCTION: "Mainstreaming" is a proposed strategy to integrate genomic testing into oncology. The aim of this paper is to develop a mainstreaming oncogenomics model by identifying health system interventions and implementation strategies for mainstreaming Lynch syndrome genomic testing. METHODS: A rigorous theoretical approach inclusive of conducting a systematic review and qualitative and quantitative studies was undertaken using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Theory-informed implementation data were mapped to the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework to generate potential strategies. RESULTS: The systematic review identified a lack of theory-guided health system interventions and evaluation for Lynch syndrome and other mainstreaming programs. The qualitative study phase included 22 participants from 12 health organizations. The quantitative Lynch syndrome survey included 198 responses: 26% and 66% from genetic and oncology health professionals, respectively. Studies identified the relative advantage and clinical utility of mainstreaming to improve genetic test access and to streamline care, and adaptation of current processes was recognized for results delivery and follow-up. Barriers identified included funding, infrastructure and resources, and the need for process and role delineation. The interventions to overcome barriers were as follows: embedded mainstream genetic counselors, electronic medical record genetic test ordering, results tracking, and mainstreaming education resources. Implementation evidence was connected through the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework resulting in a mainstreaming oncogenomics model. DISCUSSION: The proposed mainstreaming oncogenomics model acts as a complex intervention. It features an adaptable suite of implementation strategies to inform Lynch syndrome and other hereditary cancer service delivery. Implementation and evaluation of the model are required in future research.

Precision medicine programs aim to utilize novel technologies to identify personalized treatments for children with cancer. Delivering these programs requires interdisciplinary efforts, yet the many groups involved are understudied. This study explored the experiences of a broad range of professionals delivering Australia's first precision medicine trial for children with poor-prognosis cancer: the PRecISion Medicine for Children with Cancer (PRISM) national clinical trial of the Zero Childhood Cancer Program. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 85 PRISM professionals from eight professional groups, including oncologists, surgeons, clinical research associates, scientists, genetic professionals, pathologists, animal care technicians, and nurses. We analyzed interviews thematically. Professionals shared that precision medicine can add complexity to their role and result in less certain outcomes for families. Although many participants described experiencing a greater emotional impact from their work, most expressed very positive views about the impact of precision medicine on their profession and its future potential. Most reported navigating precision medicine without formal training. Each group described unique challenges involved in adapting to precision medicine in their profession. Addressing training gaps and meeting the specific needs of many professional groups involved in precision medicine will be essential to ensure the successful implementation of standard care.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review will examine the literature describing models of care, barriers and facilitators of care, and gaps in care delivery for children and adolescents with a cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS). It will also explore how advanced practice nurses contribute to the delivery of care for children and adolescents with a CPS. INTRODUCTION: Cancer remains a leading cause of death in children and adolescents. Pediatric CPS clinics proactively aim for early diagnosis or prevention of cancer in children and adolescents with a CPS. Additionally, the holistic well-being of individuals requires a multidisciplinary team, including advanced practice nurses, to manage their complex health care needs. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider both published and unpublished literature exploring aspects of models of care and the role of the nurse in pediatric CPS clinics. Literature published in English from 1991 will be considered. METHODS: This scoping review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The review will include searches in MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Complete. Gray literature searches will be conducted in OAIster and Social Science Research Network (SSRN), as well as websites of hospitals in the USA and the UK with large pediatric cancer centers. Two reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. An extraction table will be used to extract relevant data from all included articles and facilitate data analysis. Results will be presented in narrative and tabular format. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework osf.io/axkp7/.

AbstractGermline genome sequencing (GS) holds great promise for cancer prevention by identifying cancer risk and guiding prevention strategies, however research evidence is mixed regarding patient preferences for receiving GS results. The aim of this study was to discern preferences for return of results by cancer patients who have actually undergone GS. We conducted a mixed methods study with a cohort of cancer probands (n = 335) and their genetic relatives (n = 199) undergoing GS in a research setting. Both groups completed surveys when giving consent. A subset of participants (n = 40) completed semi-structured interviews. A significantly higher percentage of probands thought people would like to be informed about genetic conditions for which there is prevention or treatment that can change cancer risk compared to conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment (93% [311] versus 65% [216]; p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for relatives (91% [180] versus 61% [121]; p < 0.001). Themes identified in the analysis of interviews were: (1) Recognised benefits of GS, (2) Balancing benefits with risks, (3) Uncertain results are perceived as unhelpful and (4) Competing obligations. While utility was an important discriminator in what was seen as valuable for this cohort, there was a variety of responses. In view of varied participant preferences regarding return of results, it is important to ensure patient understanding of test validity and identify individual choices at the time of consent to GS. The nature and value of the information, and a contextual understanding of researcher obligations should guide res

Biomarkers which better match anticancer drugs with cancer driver genes hold the promise of improved clinical responses and cure rates. We developed a precision medicine platform of rapid high-throughput drug screening (HTS) and patient-derived xenografting (PDX) of primary tumor tissue, and evaluated its potential for treatment identification among 56 consecutively enrolled high-risk pediatric cancer patients, compared with conventional molecular genomics and transcriptomics. Drug hits were seen in the majority of HTS and PDX screens, which identified therapeutic options for 10 patients for whom no targetable molecular lesions could be found. Screens also provided orthogonal proof of drug efficacy suggested by molecular analyses and negative results for some molecular findings. We identified treatment options across the whole testing platform for 70% of patients. Only molecular therapeutic recommendations were provided to treating oncologists and led to a change in therapy in 53% of patients, of whom 29% had clinical benefit. These data indicate that in vitro and in vivo drug screening of tumor cells could increase therapeutic options and improve clinical outcomes for high-risk pediatric cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: Germline genome sequencing (GS) is becoming mainstream in cancer diagnosis and risk management. Identifying knowledge gaps and determinants of health behavior change intentions will enable effective targeting of educational and management strategies to translate genomic findings into improved cancer outcomes. METHODS: Probands diagnosed with cancer of likely genetic origin that consented to but not yet undergone GS, and their biological relatives, completed a cross-sectional questionnaire assessing GS knowledge and hypothetical intention to change behaviors. RESULTS: Probands (n = 348; 57% university educated) and relatives (n = 213; 38% university educated) had moderate GS knowledge levels, with greater knowledge associated with higher education. Both populations reported high behavioral change intentions, significantly associated with being female (p = 0.01) and greater perceived importance of GS (p < 0.001), and for probands: being from English-speaking households (p = 0.003), higher socio-economic status (p = 0.01) and greater self-efficacy (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing GS knowledge will enable realistic participant expectations surrounding germline GS. Actual behavior change should be monitored to determine whether increased cancer risk knowledge results in altered cancer-related behavior and ultimately, cancer outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Educational resources should target specific populations to ensure informed decision-making and expectation management. Support tools facilitating and maintaining behavioral change may be needed to achieve improved cancer patient outcomes.

Objectives: Germline genome sequencing (GS) is becoming mainstream in cancer diagnosis and risk management. Identifying knowledge gaps and determinants of health behavior change intentions will enable effective targeting of educational and management strategies to translate genomic findings into improved cancer outcomes. Methods: Probands diagnosed with cancer of likely genetic origin that consented to but not yet undergone GS, and their biological relatives, completed a cross-sectional questionnaire assessing GS knowledge and hypothetical intention to change behaviors. Results: Probands (n = 348; 57% university educated) and relatives (n = 213; 38% university educated) had moderate GS knowledge levels, with greater knowledge associated with higher education. Both populations reported high behavioral change intentions, significantly associated with being female (p = 0.01) and greater perceived importance of GS (p < 0.001), and for probands: being from English-speaking households (p = 0.003), higher socio-economic status (p = 0.01) and greater self-efficacy (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Increasing GS knowledge will enable realistic participant expectations surrounding germline GS. Actual behavior change should be monitored to determine whether increased cancer risk knowledge results in altered cancer-related behavior and ultimately, cancer outcomes. Practice implications: Educational resources should target specific populations to ensure informed decision-making and expectation management. Support tools facilitating and maintaining behavioral change may be needed to achieve improved cancer patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The Australian Pancreatic Cancer Screening Program (APCSP) offers endoscopic ultrasound surveillance for individuals at increased risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with all participants requiring assessment by a Familial Cancer Service before or after study enrolment. METHODS: Individuals aged 40-80 years (or 10 years younger than the earliest PDAC diagnosis) were eligible for APCSP study entry if they had 1) ≥ two blood relatives with PDAC (at least one of first-degree association); 2) a clinical or genetic diagnosis of Hereditary Pancreatitis or Peutz-Jeghers syndrome irrespective of PDAC family history; or 3) a known PDAC predisposition germline pathogenic variant (BRCA2, PALB2, CDKN2A, or Lynch syndrome) with ≥one PDAC-affected first- or second-degree relative. Retrospective medical record review was conducted for APCSP participants enrolled at the participating Australian hospitals from January 2011 to December 2019. We audited the genetic investigations offered by multiple Familial Cancer Services who assessed APCSP participants according to national guidelines, local clinical protocol and/or the availability of external research-funded testing, and the subsequent findings. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Of 189 kindreds (285 participants), 50 kindreds (71 participants) had a known germline pathogenic variant at enrolment (BRCA2 n = 35, PALB2 n = 6, CDKN2A n = 3, STK11 n = 3, PRSS1 n = 2, MLH1 n = 1). Forty-eight of 136 (35%) kindreds with no known germline pathogenic variant were offered mutation analysis; 89% was clinic-funded, with increasing self-funded testing since 2016. The relatively low rates of genetic testing performed reflects initial strict criteria for clinic-funded genetic testing. New germline pathogenic variants were detected in five kindreds (10.4%) after study enrolment (BRCA2 n = 3 kindreds, PALB2 n = 1, CDKN2A n = 1). Of note, only eight kindreds were reassessed by a

Translating evidence into complex health systems is an ongoing challenge. Building the capacity of healthcare workers in behavioral and implementation science methods may facilitate the use of evidence-based implementation approaches, leading to sustainable and effective translation. The aim was to describe the development, contents and evaluation of a training workshop aimed at upskilling hospital-embedded staff to deliver an evidence-based implementation approach. The Hide and Seek Project (HaSP) is a cluster randomized controlled trial testing two implementation approaches for improving hereditary cancer referral at eight Australian hospitals. Healthcare workers were recruited as "Implementation Leads" and trained via a one-day workshop-TRAining in evideNce-baSed ImpLementATion for hEalth (TRANSLATE). The purpose of TRANSLATE was to upskill Implementation Leads in the delivery of HaSP, as well as implementation science methods more broadly. Implementation Leads participated in semi-structured evaluation interviews, which were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Nine Implementation Leads from various professional backgrounds completed the training. Four key themes were identified: (i) training day reactions, (ii) learning, (iii) implementation barriers and facilitators, and (iv) building health system capacity for implementation. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction, and anticipated that the knowledge and skills may be useful in the future. We describe a novel training program focused on the delivery of evidence-based implementation within health systems. Guided by insights from this study, methods to deliver the training on a larger scale and across different contexts are being explored. The prolonged impact of TRANSLATE will be further evaluated at trial completion. Trial registration: ANZCTR, ACTRN12618001072202. Registered on June 27, 2018.

Mainstream genetic testing in routine oncology care requires implementation research to inform intervention design. In Australia, funding is available for oncology health professionals (OHP) to organise genetic testing (GT) for eligible colorectal and endometrial cancer patients as part of their routine care. To assess the health system ability to incorporate this practice change, we conducted an implementation survey using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The online survey was available from April to September 2020 to OHP and genetic health professional (GHP). In total, 198 respondents attempted the survey, with 158 completed and 27 partial responses: 26% were GHP, 66% OHP and 8% pathologists. Of all responders, 50% were female, mainly practicing in public hospital settings (57%) in an urban location (80%) and with an 18-60 years plus age range. The majority of respondents saw the relative advantage of aligning GT to abnormal universal tumour screening (UTS) results, with 77% of GHP and 78% of OHP agreeing it would streamline care for patients. There was disagreement across healthcare professional groups about knowledge and self-efficacy, with 45% of GHP not viewing oncologists as 'feeling confident' to use genetic test results for treatment management decisions, while 62% of OHP felt confident in their ability. Both OHP and GHP's indicated embedding a genetic counsellor in oncology or having a genetics point of contact to support integrating of GT through UTS as favourable interventions. Implementation research findings allow for the design of targeted interventions and a model for GT integration into oncology.

Disclosure of a hereditary condition in the family poses notable challenges for patients who often seek the assistance of genetic health professionals (GHPs). This study aimed to investigate GHPs' opinions about the ideal time for disclosure to offspring and their responsibility to at-risk relatives. Design Cross-sectional qualitative study. Setting Genetic familial cancer clinics related to mostly secondary and tertiary care hospitals and centres in urban, regional and rural areas across all states of Australia. Participants GHPs (N=73) including clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, medical specialists, nurses, surgeons and mental health specialists (eg, psychiatrists, psychologists) who had worked with BRCA1 and BRCA2 families for an average of 9 years. Results Focus groups and interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. GHPs perceived that life stage, maturity, parents' knowledge and capacity to disseminate information influenced parent-offspring disclosure. In general, GHPs recommended early informal conversations with offspring about a family illness. GHPs considered that facilitation of disclosure to relatives using counselling strategies was their responsibility, yet there were limitations to their role (eg, legal and resource constraints). Variability exists in the extent to which genetic clinics overcome challenges to disclosure. Conclusions GHPs' views on the ideal time for the disclosure of genetic risk are generally dependent on the patient's age and relative's ability to disclose information. A responsibility towards the patient and their at-risk relative was widely accepted as a role of a GHP but views vary depending on legislative and specialty differences. Greater uniformity is needed in genetic procedural guidelines and the role of each discipline (eg, geneticists, genetic counsellors, oncologists, nurses and mental health specialists) in genetic clinics to manage disclosure challenges.

Background: Despite considerable encouragement for healthcare professionals to use or be clear about the theory used in their improvement programmes, the uptake of these approaches to design interventions or report their content is lacking. Recommendations suggest healthcare practitioners work with social and/or behavioural scientists to gain expertise in programme theory, ideally before, but even during or after the work is done. We aim to demonstrate the extent to which intuitive intervention strategies designed by healthcare professionals to overcome patient barriers to communicating genetic cancer risk information to family members align with a theoretical framework of behaviour change. Methods: As part of a pre-post intervention study, a team of genetic counsellors aimed to understand, and design interventions to overcome, the major barriers a group of familial cancer patients face around communicating hereditary cancer risk information to their relatives. A behavioural change specialist worked with the team to review and recode barriers and interventions according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and 93 behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Resulting BCTs were cross-referenced against the Theory and Techniques Tool to examine whether evidence-based mechanistic links have been established to date. Results: Five themes emerged from the genetic counsellor coded barriers, which when recoded according to the TDF represented seven domains of behaviour change. Forty-five experiential and intuitive interventions were used to tackle key barriers. These were represented by 21 BCTs, which were found to be used on 131 occasions. The full mapping exercise is presented, resulting in a suite of intervention strategies explicitly linked to a theoretical framework. Structured, written reflections were provided retrospectively by the core clinical team. Conclusions: Although the ideal is to use theory prospectively, or even whilst a project is underway, making links bet

Precision medicine is changing cancer care and placing new demands on oncology professionals. Precision medicine trials for high-risk childhood cancer exemplify these complexities. We assessed clinicians’ (n = 39) and scientists’ (n = 15) experiences in the first year of the PRecISion Medicine for Children with Cancer (PRISM) trial for children and adolescents with high-risk cancers, through an in-depth semi-structured interview. We thematically analysed participants’ responses regarding their professional challenges, and measured oncologists’ knowledge of genetics and confidence with somatic and germline molecular test results. Both groups described positive early experiences with PRISM but were cognisant of managing parents’ expectations. Key challenges for clinicians included understanding and communicating genomic results, balancing biopsy risks, and drug access. Most oncologists rated ‘good’ knowledge of genetics, but a minority were ‘very confident’ in interpreting (25%), explaining (34.4%) and making treatment recommendations (18.8%) based on somatic genetic test results. Challenges for scientists included greater emotional impact of their work and balancing translational outputs with academic productivity. Continued tracking of these challenges across the course of the trial, while assessing the perspectives of a wider range of stakeholders, is critical to drive the ongoing development of a workforce equipped to manage the demands of paediatric precision medicine.

PURPOSE: Rare cancers are challenging for researchers, as clinicians and scientists have difficulty recruiting sufficient patient cases to power studies appropriately. Likewise, patients often are frustrated by a lack of specific information or evidence base for their cancer and, although eager to participate in research, have limited opportunities. We established CART-WHEEL.org, an online patient-entered database, to directly engage patients in the research process, collect rare cancer data, and facilitate their entry into additional research. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients access CART-WHEEL.org directly online. Clinical information is collected from users via a streamlined questionnaire developed collaboratively with consumer groups to ensure accessibility and relevance. Data collected include the following: patient demographics, comorbidities, and risk factors and tumor diagnostic, biomarker, and treatment history. Patients can download a medical summary for personal use; consent for research use of data; and indicate willingness to be contacted about other research or clinical trials. We describe data collected to date and its validation, and we provide examples of how CART-WHEEL.org can facilitate rare cancer research. RESULTS: From January 2010 to March 2018, 558 patients provided consent and entered their rare cancer data. One hundred distinct rare tumor types and patients from 22 countries were included. Validation of data entered by 21 patients with sarcoma against a hospital database demonstrated accuracy sufficient to facilitate future research in key fields, such as tumor site (95%) and histopathologic diagnosis (90%). Examples of CART-WHEEL-based disease-specific projects, subsequent recruitment to other rare cancer projects, and rare cancer patient cases of interest are described. CONCLUSIONS: Online platforms like CART-WHEEL.org can engage consumers directly, facilitating collection of patient-entered rare cancer data for hypothesis generation, and co

BACKGROUND:The strength of evidence supporting the validity of gene-disease relationships is variable. Hereditary cancer has the additional complexity of low or moderate penetrance for some confirmed disease-associated alleles. METHODS:To promote national consistency in interpretation of hereditary cancer/tumour gene test results, we requested opinions of representatives from Australian Family Cancer Clinics regarding the clinical utility of 157 genes initially collated for a national research project. Viewpoints were sought by initial survey, face-to-face workshop and follow-up survey. Subsequent review was undertaken by the eviQ Cancer Genetics Reference Committee, a national resource providing evidence-based and consensus-driven cancer treatment protocols. RESULTS:Genes were categorised by clinical actionability as: relevant for testing on presentation of common cancer/tumour types (n=45); relevant for testing in the context of specific rare phenotypes (n=74); insufficient clinical utility (n=34) or contentious clinical utility (n=3). Opinions for several genes altered during the study time frame, due to new information. CONCLUSION:Through an iterative process, consensus was achieved on genes with clinical utility for hereditary cancer/tumour conditions in the Australian setting. This study highlighted need for regular review of gene-disease lists, a role assumed in Australia for hereditary cancer/tumour predisposition genes by the eviQ Cancer Genetics Reference Committee.

Children and young people are increasingly likely to receive information regarding inherited health risks relevant to their genetic relatives and themselves. We reviewed the literature to determine what children and young people (21 years and younger) understand about inherited conditions and their attitudes towards genetic testing. We screened 1815 abstracts to identify 20 studies representing the perspectives of 1811 children and young people between the ages of 6 and 21 years (1498 children or young people at general population-level risk from 9 studies, 313 affected/at risk from 15 studies). Children and young people at general population-level risk demonstrated a basic understanding that disease predisposition can be inherited within families. Those affected by or at risk of genetic conditions inferred their genetic status from observable, relational characteristics within their family and the results of personal genetic testing if it had occurred, but some misunderstandings of important genetic concepts were evident. Children and young people expressed interest in and a willingness to undertake personal genetic testing, but also articulated concerns about the limitations and risks of testing. Paediatric patients require developmentally-sensitive genetic counselling and support in navigating the unique landscape of their condition.

Psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of genetic testing in oncology are well known, however, it is unclear how these findings will generalize to more complex genomic testing. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of cancer genomic testing. Studies were selected for inclusion if they were published from January 2003 to January 2017 and addressed psychological and behavioral outcomes of cancer genomic testing in adults. A review of four databases identified 9620 abstracts, with 22 publications meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the included articles, 11 studies reported on outcomes of germline testing, with three articles assessing panel testing and eight SNP testing. No studies assessed the outcomes of WGS or WES. Eleven articles assessed the outcomes of somatic testing, including testing for cancer prognosis and for personalized therapies. Studies were biased toward breast cancer and Caucasian women with high education and socioeconomic status. While studies demonstrated limited adverse psychological outcomes associated with genomic testing, a lack of consistency in psychosocial measures precluded any meta-analysis. Changes in health behavior following positive results were limited, and in some cases risk perception was not altered following genomic testing. There is limited evidence of adverse psychosocial outcomes and changes in health behavior following genomic testing to assess cancer risk. Findings from this review highlight the need for longitudinal research with superior methodological and theoretical design.

The multifactorial likelihood analysis method has demonstrated utility for quantitative assessment of variant pathogenicity for multiple cancer syndrome genes. Independent data types currently incorporated in the model for assessing BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants include clinically calibrated prior probability of pathogenicity based on variant location and bioinformatic prediction of variant effect, co-segregation, family cancer history profile, co-occurrence with a pathogenic variant in the same gene, breast tumor pathology, and case-control information. Research and clinical data for multifactorial likelihood analysis were collated for 1,395 BRCA1/2 predominantly intronic and missense variants, enabling classification based on posterior probability of pathogenicity for 734 variants: 447 variants were classified as (likely) benign, and 94 as (likely) pathogenic; and 248 classifications were new or considerably altered relative to ClinVar submissions. Classifications were compared with information not yet included in the likelihood model, and evidence strengths aligned to those recommended for ACMG/AMP classification codes. Altered mRNA splicing or function relative to known nonpathogenic variant controls were moderately to strongly predictive of variant pathogenicity. Variant absence in population datasets provided supporting evidence for variant pathogenicity. These findings have direct relevance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant evaluation, and justify the need for gene-specific calibration of evidence types used for variant classification.

Background: There is growing impetus for increased genetic screening in childhood cancer survivors. Family history-taking is a critical first step in determining survivors’ suitability. However, the family history-taking practices of providers of pediatric oncology survivorship care and the confidence of these providers to discuss cancer risks to relatives are unknown. Procedure: Fifty-four providers completed semistructured interviews in total, which included eight tertiary providers representing nine hospitals across two countries (63% male, 63% oncologists, 37% nurses) and 46 primary care providers (PCPs) nominated by a survivor (59% male, 35% regional practice). We used content analysis and descriptive statistics/regression to analyze the data. Results: Few tertiary (38%) or primary (35%) providers regularly collected survivors’ family histories, often relying on survivors/parents to initiate discussions. Providers mostly took two-generation pedigrees (63% tertiary and 81% primary). Primary providers focused on adult cancers. Lack of time, alternative priorities, and perceived lack of relevance were common barriers. Half of all tertiary providers felt moderately comfortable discussing genetic cancer risk to children of survivors (88% felt similarly discussing risks to other relatives). Most primary providers lacked confidence: 41% felt confident regarding risks to survivors’ children and 48% regarding risks to other relatives. Conclusions: While family history-taking will not identify all survivors suitable for genetics assessment, recommendations for regular history-taking are not being implemented in tertiary or primary care. Additional PCP-targeted genetic education is warranted given that they are well placed to review family histories of pediatric cancer survivors.

Background: Using patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) to assess chemosensitivity to anti-cancer agents in real-time may improve cancer care by enabling individualized clinical decision-making. However, it is unknown whether this new approach will be met with acceptance by patients, family and community. Methods: We used a cross-sectional structured survey to investigate PDX acceptability with 1550 individuals across Australia and New Zealand (648 survivors of adult and childhood cancer, versus 650 community comparisons; and 48 parents of childhood cancer survivors versus 204 community parents). We identified factors influencing willingness-to-use PDXs, willingness-to-pay, maximum acceptable wait-time, and maximum acceptable number of mice used per patient. Findings: PDXs were highly acceptable: >80% of those affected by cancer felt the potential advantages of PDXs outweighed the disadvantages (community participants: 68%). Survivors' and survivors' parents' most highly endorsed advantage was ‘increased chance of survival’. ‘Harm to animals’ was the least endorsed disadvantage for all groups. Cancer survivors were more willing to use PDXs than community comparisons [p < ·001]. Survivors and survivors' parents were willing to pay more [p < ·001; p = ∙004 respectively], wait longer for results [p = ·03; p = ∙01], and use more mice [p = ·01; p < ∙001] than community comparisons. Male survivors found PDXs more acceptable [p = ·01] and were willing to pay more [p < ·001] than female survivors. Survivors with higher incomes found PDXs more acceptable [p = ·002] and were willing to pay more [p < ·001] than survivors with lower incomes. Mothers found PDXs more acceptable [p = ·04] but were less willing to wait [p = ·02] than fathers. Interpretation: We found significant attitudinal support for PDX-guided cancer care. Willingness-to-pay and maximum acceptable number of mice align well with likely future usage. Maximum acceptable wait-times were lower than is currently achievabl

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This review assessed parents’ attitudes toward childhood genetic testing for health conditions, with a focus on perceived advantages and disadvantages. We also evaluated the factors that influence parents’ attitudes toward childhood genetic testing. We searched Medline, Medline In-Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts and CINAHL. We screened 945 abstracts and identified 21 studies representing the views of 3934 parents. Parents reported largely positive attitudes toward childhood genetic testing across different genetic tests with varying medical utility. Parents perceived a range of advantages and disadvantages of childhood genetic testing. Childhood genetic testing was viewed by most as beneficial. Parents’ education level, genetic status, sex and sociodemographic status were associated with reported attitudes. This yielded some conflicting findings, indicating the need for further research. Genetic counseling remains essential to support this population in making well-informed decisions. Targeted interventions tailored to specific families with different sociodemographic characteristics may be useful. Further research on the long-term impact of childhood genetic testing on families is warranted.

Estimates of the number of childhood cancers with a genetic basis range from 5–8.5% found in germline samples to 29% based on clinical criteria. Family history-taking practice is a fundamental first step in detecting at risk individuals and families. This study focused on Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS), a highly penetrant cancer syndrome. Reported family history in a cohort of 648 of cancer survivor cohort (CCS) was examined. Eligible CCS were: (i) aged up to 14 years at diagnosis; (ii) more than 5 years postdiagnosis; (iii) treated for a childhood cancer at the study hospitals in NSW, Australia; (iv) in remission for more than 3 years. CCS completed self-administered questionnaires. Medical records confirmed diagnosis and treatment-related information. Our findings reveal an increased cancer risk among sibling and relatives of CCS. 91% of siblings diagnosed with cancer were diagnosed under the age of 40 and about 30% diagnosed under the aged of 15 revealing a 5- (RR = 5.1; 95% CI, 3.3–7.9) and 44-fold (RR = 44.6; 95% CI, 18.4–108.3) increased risked of cancer compared with the Australian population, respectively. About 2% of CCS reported that they had been diagnosed with a genetic cancer syndrome. However, 11% of survivors described a family history pattern which met Chompret criteria for screening for TP53 mutations associated with LFS. Our data suggests that familial cancer predispositions may be initially overlooked. Aperiodic and accurate ascertainment of family cancer history of childhood cancer patients and survivors is therefore recommended.

PURPOSE: Increasingly, women newly diagnosed with breast cancer are being offered treatment-focused genetic testing (TFGT). As the demand for TFGT increases, streamlined methods of genetic education are needed. METHODS: In this noninferiority trial, women aged <50 years with either a strong family history (FH+) or other features suggestive of a germ-line mutation (FH-) were randomized before definitive breast cancer surgery to receive TFGT education either as brief written materials (intervention group (IG)) or during a genetic counseling session at a familial cancer clinic (usual-care group (UCG)). Women completed self-report questionnaires at four time points over 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 135 women were included in the analysis, all of whom opted for TFGT. Decisional conflict about TFGT choice (primary outcome) was not inferior in the IG compared with the UCG (noninferiority margin of -10; mean difference = 2.45; 95% confidence interval -2.87-7.76; P = 0.36). Costs per woman counseled in the IG were significantly lower (AUD$89) compared with the UCG (AUD$173; t(115) = 6.02; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A streamlined model of educating women newly diagnosed with breast cancer about TFGT seems to be a cost-effective way of delivering education while ensuring that women feel informed and supported in their decision making, thus freeing resources for other women to access TFGT.Genet Med 19 4, 448-456.

Purpose:This review assessed the psychological impact that acquiring personal and familial genetic information has on children. We also examined the concordance between the available empirical data and clinical guidance/perspectives articles.Methods:We screened 591 abstracts and identified 13 studies, representing 966 children. Ten studies assessed 386 children tested for familial adenomatous polyposis (n = 171), hereditary cardiac disease (n = 134), and other conditions (n = 81). Three studies addressed the impact of BRCA1/2 testing of a family member on 580 children.Results:Serious adverse psychological outcomes were uncommon. Most studies reported no significant increase in mean anxiety, depression, and distress scores (n = 8, 61.5%); however, some children experienced intrafamilial distress, discrimination, and guilt/regret. Some children were more concerned about their own health or their family members' health. There was limited consistency between anticipated adverse impact and empirical data.Conclusions:The review identified little conclusive evidence of deleterious psychological consequences for children acquiring genetic information. However, there is a lack of data regarding genetic testing for conditions that may not be treatable/modifiable, as well as a dearth of longitudinal studies. Therefore, clinical caution remains essential for the ethical integration of genetic testing into pediatrics. Further research assessing the potential positive and negative effects of genetic testing in childhood is warranted.

Selection of women for treatment-focused genetic testing (TFGT) following a new diagnosis of breast cancer is changing. Increasingly a patient's age and tumour characteristics rather than only their family history are driving access to TFGT, but little is known about the impact of receiving carrier-positive results in individuals with no family history of cancer. This study assesses the role of knowledge of a family history of cancer on psychosocial adjustment to TFGT in both women with and without mutation carrier-positive results. In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 women who had undergone TFGT, and who had been purposively sampled to represent women both family history and carrier status, and subjected to a rigorous qualitative analysis. It was found that mutation carriers without a family history reported difficulties in making surgical decisions quickly, while in carriers with a family history, a decision regarding surgery, electing for bilateral mastectomy (BM), had often already been made before receipt of their result. Long-term adjustment to a mutation-positive result was hindered by a sense of isolation not only by those without a family history but also those with a family history who lacked an affected relative with whom they could identify. Women with a family history who had no mutation identified and who had not elected BM reported a lack of closure following TFGT. These findings indicate support deficits hindering adjustment to positive TFGT results for women with and without a family history, particularly in regard to immediate decision-making about risk-reducing surgery.

The base excision repair protein, MUTYH, functionally interacts with the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) system. As genetic testing moves from testing one gene at a time, to gene panel and whole exome next generation sequencing approaches, understandin g the risk associated with co-existence of germline mutations in these genes will be important for clinical interpretation and management. From the Colon Cancer Family Registry, we identified 10 carriers who had both a MUTYH mutation (6 with c.1187G>A p.(Gly396Asp), 3 with c.821G>A p.(Arg274Gln), and 1 with c.536A>G p.(Tyr179Cys)) and a MMR gene mutation (3 in MLH1, 6 in MSH2, and 1 in PMS2), 375 carriers of a single (monoallelic) MUTYH mutation alone, and 469 carriers of a MMR gene mutation alone. Of the 10 carriers of both gene mutations, 8 were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Using a weighted cohort analysis, we estimated that risk of colorectal cancer for carriers of both a MUTYH and a MMR gene mutation was substantially higher than that for carriers of a MUTYH mutation alone [hazard ratio (HR) 21.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.19-50.1; p < 0.001], but not different from that for carriers of a MMR gene mutation alone (HR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63-5.99; p = 0.25). Within the limited power of this study, there was no evidence that a monoallelic MUTYH gene mutation confers additional risk of colorectal cancer for carriers of a MMR gene mutation alone. Our finding suggests MUTYH mutation testing in MMR gene mutation carriers is not clinically informative.

Carriers of germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes are at increased risk of several cancers including colorectal and gynecologic cancers (Lynch syndrome). There is no substantial evidence that these mutations are associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer. A total of 369 families with at least one carrier of a mutation in a MMR gene (133 MLH1, 174 MSH2, 35 MSH6 and 27 PMS2) were ascertained via population cancer registries or via family cancer clinics in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and USA. Personal and family histories of cancer were obtained from participant interviews. Modified segregation analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio (incidence rates for carriers relative to those for the general population), and age-specific cumulative risks of cervical cancer for carriers. A total of 65 cases of cervical cancer were reported (including 10 verified by pathology reports). The estimated incidence was 5.6 fold (95% CI: 2.3-13.8; p = 0.001) higher for carriers than for the general population with a corresponding cumulative risk to 80 years of 4.5% (95% CI: 1.9-10.7%) compared with 0.8% for the general population. The mean age at diagnosis was 43.1 years (95% CI: 40.0-46.2), 3.9 years younger than the reported USA population mean of 47.0 years (p = 0.02). Women with MMR gene mutations were found to have an increased risk of cervical cancer. Due to limited pathology verification we cannot be certain that a proportion of these cases were not lower uterine segment endometrial cancers involving the endocervix, a recognized cancer of Lynch syndrome.

We studied 2332 individuals with monoallelic mutations in MUTYH among 9504 relatives of 264 colorectal cancer (CRC) cases with a MUTYH mutation. We estimated CRC risks through 70 years of age of 7.2% for male carriers of monoallelic mutations (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6%-11.3%) and 5.6% for female carriers of monoallelic mutations (95% CI, 3.6%-8.8%), irrespective of family history. For monoallelic MUTYH mutation carriers with a first-degree relative with CRC diagnosed by 50 years of age who does not have the MUTYH mutation, risks of CRC were 12.5% for men (95% CI, 8.6%-17.7%) and 10% for women (95% CI, 6.7%-14.4%). Risks of CRC for carriers of monoallelic mutations in MUTYH with a first-degree relative with CRC are sufficiently high to warrant more intensive screening than for the general population.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominantly inherited disorder caused by germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Previous studies have shown that MMR gene mutation carriers are at increased risk of colorectal, endometrial, and several other cancers following an initial diagnosis of colorectal cancer. We estimated cancer risks following an endometrial cancer diagnosis for women carrying MMR gene mutations. METHODS: We obtained data from the Colon Cancer Family Registry for a cohort of 127 women who had a diagnosis of endometrial cancer and who carried a mutation in one of four MMR genes (30 carried a mutation in MLH1, 72 in MSH2, 22 in MSH6, and 3 in PMS2). We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate 10- and 20-year cumulative risks for each cancer. We estimated the age-, country-, and calendar period-specific standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for each cancer, compared with the general population. RESULTS: Following endometrial cancer, women carrying MMR gene mutations had the following 20-year risks of other cancer cancers: colorectal cancer (48%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 35% to 62%); cancer of the kidney, renal pelvis, or ureter (11%, 95% CI = 3% to 20%); urinary bladder cancer (9%, 95% CI = 2% to 17%); and breast cancer (11%, 95% CI = 4% to 19%). Compared with the general population, these women were at statistically significantly elevated risks of colorectal cancer (SIR = 39.9, 95% CI = 27.2 to 58.3), cancer of the kidney, renal pelvis, or ureter (SIR = 28.3, 95% CI = 11.9 to 48.6), urinary bladder cancer (SIR = 24.3, 95% CI = 8.56 to 42.9), and breast cancer (SIR = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.17 to 4.14). CONCLUSIONS: Women with Lynch syndrome who are diagnosed with endometrial cancer have increased risks of several cancers, including breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is a highly penetrant cancer predisposition syndrome caused by germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes. We estimated the risks of primary cancers other than colorectal cancer following a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in mutation carriers. METHODS: We obtained data from the Colon Cancer Family Registry for 764 carriers of an MMR gene mutation (316 MLH1, 357 MSH2, 49 MSH6, and 42 PMS2), who had a previous diagnosis of colorectal cancer. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate their cumulative risk of cancers 10 and 20 years after colorectal cancer. We estimated the age-, sex-, country- and calendar period-specific standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of cancers following colorectal cancer, compared with the general population. RESULTS: Following colorectal cancer, carriers of MMR gene mutations had the following 10-year risk of cancers in other organs: kidney, renal pelvis, ureter, and bladder (2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1% to 3%); small intestine, stomach, and hepatobiliary tract (1%, 95% CI = 0.2% to 2%); prostate (3%, 95% CI = 1% to 5%); endometrium (12%, 95% CI = 8% to 17%); breast (2%, 95% CI = 1% to 4%); and ovary (1%, 95% CI = 0% to 2%). They were at elevated risk compared with the general population: cancers of the kidney, renal pelvis, and ureter (SIR = 12.54, 95% CI = 7.97 to 17.94), urinary bladder (SIR = 7.22, 95% CI = 4.08 to 10.99), small intestine (SIR = 72.68, 95% CI = 39.95 to 111.29), stomach (SIR = 5.65, 95% CI = 2.32 to 9.69), and hepatobiliary tract (SIR = 5.94, 95% CI = 1.81 to 10.94) for both sexes; cancer of the prostate (SIR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.23 to 3.01), endometrium (SIR = 40.23, 95% CI = 27.91 to 56.06), breast (SIR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.07 to 2.59), and ovary (SIR = 4.19, 95% CI = 1.28 to 7.97). CONCLUSION: Carriers of MMR gene mutations who have already had a colorectal cancer are at increased risk of a greater range of cancers than the recognized spectrum of Lynch syndrome cancers, incl

PURPOSE: To determine whether cancer risks for carriers and noncarriers from families with a mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutation are increased above the risks of the general population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively followed a cohort of 446 unaffected carriers of an MMR gene mutation (MLH1, n = 161; MSH2, n = 222; MSH6, n = 47; and PMS2, n = 16) and 1,029 their unaffected relatives who did not carry a mutation every 5 years at recruitment centers of the Colon Cancer Family Registry. For comparison of cancer risk with the general population, we estimated country-, age-, and sex-specific standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of cancer for carriers and noncarriers. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 5 years, mutation carriers had an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC; SIR, 20.48; 95% CI, 11.71 to 33.27; P < .001), endometrial cancer (SIR, 30.62; 95% CI, 11.24 to 66.64; P < .001), ovarian cancer (SIR, 18.81; 95% CI, 3.88 to 54.95; P < .001), renal cancer (SIR, 11.22; 95% CI, 2.31 to 32.79; P < .001), pancreatic cancer (SIR, 10.68; 95% CI, 2.68 to 47.70; P = .001), gastric cancer (SIR, 9.78; 95% CI, 1.18 to 35.30; P = .009), urinary bladder cancer (SIR, 9.51; 95% CI, 1.15 to 34.37; P = .009), and female breast cancer (SIR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.59 to 8.13; P = .001). We found no evidence of their noncarrier relatives having an increased risk of any cancer, including CRC (SIR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.33 to 2.39; P = .97). CONCLUSION: We confirmed that carriers of an MMR gene mutation were at increased risk of a wide variety of cancers, including some cancers not previously recognized as being a result of MMR mutations, and found no evidence of an increased risk of cancer for their noncarrier relatives.