Search

Objective: Germline genetic testing is increasingly offered to patients with epithelial ovarian cancer by non-genetic healthcare professionals, so called mainstream genetic testing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of implementing a mainstream genetic testing pathway on the percentage of newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer to whom genetic testing was offered and the genetics-related healthcare costs., Methods: The possible care pathways for genetic counseling and testing and their associated costs were mapped. Patient files from all newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer before (March 2016 - September 2017) and after (April 2018 - December 2019) implementing our mainstream genetic testing pathway were analyzed. Based on this analysis, the percentage of newly diagnosed patients to whom genetic testing was offered was assessed and genetics-related healthcare costs were calculated using a healthcare payer perspective based on a Diagnosis-Related Group financing approach., Results: Within six months after diagnosis, genetic testing was offered to 56% of patients before and to 70% of patients after implementation of our mainstream genetic testing pathway (p = 0.005). Genetics-related healthcare costs decreased from €3.511,29 per patient before implementation to €2.418,41 per patient after implementation of our mainstream genetic testing pathway (31% reduction, p = 0.000)., Conclusion: This study shows that mainstream genetic testing leads to a significantly higher proportion of newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer being offered germline genetic testing. In addition, it significantly reduces genetics-related healthcare costs per patient., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest AstraZeneca sponsored the training module that was developed as part of this project, and was not involved in the development of its content., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Due to limited health literacy and resulting ineffective communication between healthcare professionals and patients, not all eligible patients are offered breast cancer genetic counseling and testing. We aimed to develop a plain-language guide to increase effective communication about genetic counseling and testing with breast cancer patients with limited health literacy., Methods: Together with oncological healthcare professionals, we drafted a list of jargon words frequently used during (breast) cancer genetic counseling. In a focus group interview with breast cancer counselees with limited health literacy, who had received genetic counseling before, we reformulated these words in plain language. Low-literate individuals, who are not familiar with breast cancer care or genetic counseling, reflected on the draft of the guide. Completeness, acceptability, and perceived usability were tested in an online questionnaire among healthcare professionals., Results: The result is a plain-language guide for genetic counseling and testing with 33 frequently used jargon words and a reformulation of these words in plain language. Acceptability and perceived usefulness of the guide among healthcare professionals (n = 58) were high., Conclusion: The plain-language guide provides opportunities to facilitate communication about genetic counseling and testing with patients with limited health literacy and could enhance opportunities for patients to make informed decisions to participate in genetic testing. As the intention from healthcare professionals to use the plain-language guide is high, implementation of the guide in a real-life setting seems promising.

Early-onset breast cancer may be due to Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS). Current national and international guidelines recommend that TP53 genetic testing should be considered for women with breast cancer diagnosed before the age of 31 years. However, large studies investigating TP53 mutation prevalence in this population are scarce. We collected nationwide laboratory records for all young breast cancer patients tested for TP53 mutations in the Netherlands. Between 2005 and 2016, 370 women diagnosed with breast cancer younger than 30 years of age were tested for TP53 germline mutations, and eight (2.2%) were found to carry a (likely) pathogenic TP53 sequence variant. Among BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation negative women without a family history suggestive of LFS or a personal history of multiple LFS-related tumours, the TP53 mutation frequency was < 1% (2/233). Taking into consideration that TP53 mutation prevalence was comparable or even higher in some studies selecting patients with breast cancer onset at older ages or HER2-positive breast cancers, raises the question of whether a very early age of onset is an appropriate single TP53 genetic testing criterion.

To establish whether existing mutation prediction models can identify which male breast cancer (MBC) patients should be offered BRCA1 and BRCA2 diagnostic DNA screening, we compared the performance of BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm), BRCAPRO (BRCA probability) and the Myriad prevalence table ("Myriad"). These models were evaluated using the family data of 307 Dutch MBC probands tested for BRCA1/2, 58 (19%) of whom were carriers. We compared the numbers of observed vs predicted carriers and assessed the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve (AUC) for each model. BOADICEA predicted the total number of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers quite accurately (observed/predicted ratio: 0.94). When a cut-off of 10% and 20% prior probability was used, BRCAPRO showed a non-significant better performance (observed/predicted ratio BOADICEA: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.60-1.09] and 0.79, 95% CI: [0.57-1.09], vs., Brcapro: 1.02, 95% CI: [0.75-1.38] and 0.94, 95% CI: [0.68-1.31], respectively). Myriad underestimated the number of carriers in up to 69% of the cases. BRCAPRO showed a non-significant, higher AUC than BOADICEA (0.798 vs 0.776). Myriad showed a significantly lower AUC (0.671). BRCAPRO and BOADICEA can efficiently identify MBC patients as BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Besides their general applicability, these tools will be of particular value in countries with limited healthcare resources., (© 2017 The Authors. Clinical Genetics published by John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This study explores knowledge about hereditary breast cancer, attitudes about BRCA testing and referral pattern to a family cancer clinic among medical specialists. A total of 92 questionnaires were completed by surgeons (38), medical oncologists (29), radiation oncologists (13) and radiologists (12). The response rate was 51%. A substantial (11-56%) proportion of medical specialists do not refer patients who meet current criteria for BRCA testing. Although questions on inheritance were less well answered, overall knowledge was good. They had a positive attitude, but were concerned about the distress DNA testing might cause to family members. The majority (75%) stated that the best time for referral is after adjuvant therapy or during follow-up, but another important determinant was the patient's wish or need (12%). Further studies are needed to gain insight into the actual referral process, while ongoing training of medical specialists about genetic aspects of breast cancer is also necessary.

Background: The family-link approach of case finding is considered the fastest and most efficient approach to trace people with hereditary disease. Therefore, there is a need to understand if, why, and how people with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) inform their biological family., Aim: To explore people's perspective on informing one's biological family regarding a hereditary predisposition for HNPCC., Method: In-depth interviews were conducted with 30 people recruited from the database of the Netherlands Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours (STOET). Interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically., Findings: Disclosure was stimulated if people felt morally obliged to do so or when they anticipated regret if something happened because it is preventable. Motivation to disclose seemed to increase if there were, especially fatal, cancer cases in the family. Presence of external cues (e.g. professionals) appeared important for disclosure as well. Disrupted and tense family relations were reasons not to disclose, as well as young age of the message recipients and negative experiences at their first attempt to disclose (a novel finding). Disclosure was merely restricted to the nuclear family. A personal approach in this respect was preferred. With respect to content of the disclosure, participants reported to solely announce the presence of the hereditary defect and the possibility of testing. It was mostly considered the recipients' responsibility and own choice to obtain further (technical/medical) information.