Information Provision Regarding Health-Related Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing for Dutch Consumers: An in-Depth Content Analysis of Sellers’ Websites

Background: Previous studies have suggested that information offered by sellers of health-related direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GTs) is often incomplete, unbalanced, or too difficult to understand. The extent to which this is the case for sellers accessible to Dutch consumers has not previously been studied. Methods and Goals: The present study aimed to assess the completeness, balance, readability, and findability of informational content on a selection of websites from several health-related DTC-GT sellers accessible to Dutch consumers. An in-depth content analysis was performed based on a recently published checklist outlining key items for policy guidance regarding DTC-GT services. Results: The information provided by sellers did not equally cover all aspects relevant to health-related DTC-GT service provision. The provided information was slightly unbalanced, with benefits of health-related DTC-GT usage being overemphasized compared to its risks and limitations. The readability of the provided information was low, on average requiring college education for proper understanding. A findability analysis showed that information concerning all themes is overall relatively evenly distributed across analyzed sellers’ websites. Conclusions: Information provision by assessed health-related DTC-GT sellers is suboptimal regarding completeness, balance, and readability. To better empower potential consumers to make an informed decision regarding health-related DTC-GT usage, we advocate industry-wide enhancement of information provision

The most efficient and effective BRCA1/2 testing strategy in epithelial ovarian cancer:Tumor-First or Germline-First?

Objective: Genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) is essential to identify a hereditary cause like a germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV). An efficient strategy for genetic testing in OC is highly desired. We evaluated costs and effects of two strategies; (i) Tumor-First strategy, using a tumor DNA test as prescreen to germline testing, and (ii) Germline-First strategy, referring all patients to the clinical geneticist for germline testing.Methods: Tumor-First and Germline-First were compared in two scenarios; using real-world uptake of testing and setting implementation to 100%. Decision analytic models were built to analyze genetic testing costs (including counseling) per OC patient and per family as well as BRCA1/2 detection probabilities. With a Markov model, the life years gained among female relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV was investigated.Results: Focusing on real-world uptake, with the Tumor-First strategy more OC patients and relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV are detected (70% versus 49%), at lower genetic testing costs (€1898 versus €2502 per patient, and €2511 versus €2930 per family). Thereby, female relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV can live on average 0.54 life years longer with Tumor-First compared to Germline-First. Focusing on 100% uptake, the genetic testing costs per OC patient are substantially lower in the Tumor-First strategy (€2257 versus €4986).Conclusions: The Tumor-First strategy in OC patients is more effective in identifying germline BRCA1/2 PV at lower genetic testing costs per patient and per family. Optimal implementation of Tumor-First can further improve detection of heredity in OC patients.</p

Probability of detecting germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in histological subtypes of ovarian carcinoma:A meta-analysis

Background: Histology restricted genetic predisposition testing of ovarian carcinoma patients is a topic of debate as the prevalence of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) in various histological subtypes is ambiguous. Our primary aim was to investigate the proportion of germline BRCA1/2 PVs per histological subtype. Additionally, we evaluated (i) proportion of somatic BRCA1/2 PVs and (ii) proportion of germline PVs in other ovarian carcinoma risk genes. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were systematically searched and we included all studies reporting germline BRCA1/2 PVs per histological subtype. Pooled proportions were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis model. Subsets of studies were used for secondary analyses. Results: Twenty-eight studies were identified. The overall estimated proportion of germline BRCA1/2 PVs was 16.8% (95% CI 14.6 to 19.2). Presence differed substantially among patients with varying histological subtypes of OC; proportions being highest in high-grade serous (22.2%, 95% CI 19.6 to 25.0) and lowest in clear cell (3.0%, 95% CI 1.6 to 5.6) and mucinous (2.5%, 95% CI 0.6 to 9.6) carcinomas. Somatic BRCA1/2 PVs were present with total estimated proportion of 6.0% (95% CI 5.0 to 7.3), based on a smaller subset of studies. Germline PVs in BRIP1, RAD51C, RAD51D, PALB2, and ATM were present in approximately 3%, based on a subset of nine studies. Conclusion: Germline BRCA1/2 PVs are most frequently identified in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma patients, but are also detected in patients having ovarian carcinomas of other histological subtypes. Limiting genetic predisposition testing to high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma patients will likely be insufficient to identify all patients with a germline PV

Recontacting non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer patients for germline CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant testing: uptake and patient experiences

Background: CHEK2 has been recognized as a breast cancer risk gene with moderate effect. Women who have previously tested negative for a BRCA1/2 gene germline pathogenic variant may benefit from additional genetic testing for the CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant. The aims of this study were: 1) to assess the uptake of an active approach by recontacting BRCA1/2-negative women for additional CHEK2 c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples and 2) to explore patients’ experiences with this approach. Methods: Between 2015 and 2017, women who had been tested earlier negative for BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variants, were recontacted for additional CHEK2 c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples, free-of-charge. They received an information letter about the CHEK2 pathogenic variant and could return an informed consent form when they opted for additional genetic testing. Those in whom the CHEK2 pathogenic variant was absent, received a letter describing this result. Those who tested positive, were invited for a personal counseling at the department of genetics. On average 21 months (range 4–27) after the genetic test result, a questionnaire was sent to all identified carriers and a control group of women who tested negative for the pathogenic variant to explore patients’ experiences with our approach. Results: In total, 70% (N = 1666) of the N = 2377 women contacted opted for additional testing, and 66 (4%) of them proved to be carriers of the CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant. Regardless of the outcome of the genetic test, women were generally satisfied with our approach and reported that the written information was sufficient to make an informed decision about the additional CHEK2 testing. Conclusions: The uptake (70%) of our approach was considered satisfactory. Patients considered the benefits more important than the psychosocial burden. Given the rapid developments in DNA-diagnostics, our findings may support future initiatives to recontact patients about additional genetic testing when they previously tested negative for a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer gene

Mainstream genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer provides a solid basis for patients to make a well-informed decision about genetic testing

Background: There is a growing need for genetic testing of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. Mainstream genetic testing provides an alternative care pathway in which non-genetic healthcare professionals offer pre-test counseling themselves. We aimed to explore the impact of mainstream genetic testing on patients’ experiences, turnaround times and adherence of non-genetic healthcare professionals to the mainstream genetic testing protocol. Methods: Patients receiving pre-test counseling at the gynecology departments between April 2018 and April 2020 were eligible to participate in our intervention group. Patients receiving pre-test counseling at the genetics department between January 2017 and April 2020 were eligible to participate in our control group. We evaluated patients’ experiences with questionnaires, consisting of questions regarding knowledge, satisfaction and psychosocial outcomes. Patients in the intervention group were sent two questionnaires: one after pre-test counseling and one after receiving their DNA test result. Patients in our control group were sent one questionnaire after receiving their test result. In addition, we collected data regarding turnaround times and adherence of non-genetic healthcare professionals to the mainstream genetic testing protocol. Results: Participation was 79% in our intervention group (105 out of 133 patients) and 60% in our control group (91 out of 152 patients). Knowledge regarding genetics, decisional conflict, depression, anxiety, and distress were comparable in the two groups. In the intervention group, the risk of breast cancer in patients carrying a pathogenic germline variant was discussed less often (49% versus 74% in control group, p ≤ 0.05), and the mean score of regret about the decision to have genetic testing was higher than in the control group (mean 12.9 in the intervention group versus 9.7 in the control group, p ≤ 0.05), although below the clinically relevant threshold of 25. A consent form for the DNA test and a checklist to assess family history were present for ≥ 95% of patients in the intervention group. Conclusion: Mainstream genetic testing is an acceptable approach to meet the increase in genetic testing among women with epithelial ovarian cancer

Men with metastatic prostate cancer carrying a pathogenic germline variant in breast cancer genes: disclosure of genetic test results to relatives

Some patients with metastatic prostate cancer carry a pathogenic germline variant (PV) in a gene, that is mainly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in women. If they test positive for such a PV, prostate cancer patients are encouraged to disclose the genetic test result to relatives who are at risk in case the carrier status changes the relatives’ medical care. Our study aimed to investigate how men who learned they carry a PV in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2 or ATM disclosed their carrier status to at-risk relatives and to assess the possible psychological burden for the carrier and their perception of the burden for relatives. In total, 23 men with metastatic prostate cancer carrying a PV completed the IRI questionnaire about family communication; 14 also participated in a semi-structured interview. Patients felt highly confident in discussing the genetic test result with relatives. The diagnosis of prostate cancer was experienced as a burden, whereas being informed about genetic testing results did in most cases not add to this burden. Two patients encountered negative experiences with family communication, as they considered the genetic test result to be more urgent than their relatives. This mixed-methods study shows that metastatic prostate cancer patients with a PV in genes mainly associated with increased risk of breast cancer feel well-equipped to communicate about this predisposition in their families. Carriers felt motivated to disclose their genetic test result to relatives. Most of them indicated that the disclosure was not experienced as a psychological burden

Long-term outcome of high-grade serous carcinoma established in risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy specimens in asymptomatic <i>BRCA1/2</i> germline pathogenic variant carriers

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the long-term outcome of asymptomatic BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variant (GPV) carriers with high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) in their risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) specimen. Methods: In a previously described cohort of asymptomatic BRCA1/2 GPV carriers derived from the Hereditary Breast and Ovarian cancer in the Netherlands (HEBON) study, women with HGSC at RRSO were identified. Main outcome was ten-year disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes were time to recurrence, ten-year disease-specific survival (DSS), ten-year overall survival (OS). Patient, disease and treatment characteristics associated with recurrence were described. Results: The 28 included women with HGSC at RRSO were diagnosed at a median age of 55.3 years (range: 33.5–74.3). After staging, eighteen women had (FIGO) stage I, three stage II and five had stage III disease. Two women did not undergo surgical staging and were classified as unknown stage. After a median follow-up of 13.5 years (range: 9.1–24.7), six women with stage I (33%), one woman with stage II (33%), two women with stage III (40%) and none of the women with unknown stage developed a recurrence. Median time to recurrence was 6.9 years (range: 0.8–9.2 years). Ten-year DFS was 68%, ten-year DSS was 88% and ten-year OS was 82%. Conclusion: Most asymptomatic BRCA1/2 GPV carriers with HGSC at RRSO were diagnosed at an early stage. Nevertheless, after a median follow-up of 13.5 years, nine of the 28 women with HGSC at RRSO developed a recurrence after a median of 6.9 years.</p

Long-term outcome of high-grade serous carcinoma established in risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy specimens in asymptomatic <i>BRCA1/2</i> germline pathogenic variant carriers

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the long-term outcome of asymptomatic BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variant (GPV) carriers with high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) in their risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) specimen. Methods: In a previously described cohort of asymptomatic BRCA1/2 GPV carriers derived from the Hereditary Breast and Ovarian cancer in the Netherlands (HEBON) study, women with HGSC at RRSO were identified. Main outcome was ten-year disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes were time to recurrence, ten-year disease-specific survival (DSS), ten-year overall survival (OS). Patient, disease and treatment characteristics associated with recurrence were described. Results: The 28 included women with HGSC at RRSO were diagnosed at a median age of 55.3 years (range: 33.5–74.3). After staging, eighteen women had (FIGO) stage I, three stage II and five had stage III disease. Two women did not undergo surgical staging and were classified as unknown stage. After a median follow-up of 13.5 years (range: 9.1–24.7), six women with stage I (33%), one woman with stage II (33%), two women with stage III (40%) and none of the women with unknown stage developed a recurrence. Median time to recurrence was 6.9 years (range: 0.8–9.2 years). Ten-year DFS was 68%, ten-year DSS was 88% and ten-year OS was 82%. Conclusion: Most asymptomatic BRCA1/2 GPV carriers with HGSC at RRSO were diagnosed at an early stage. Nevertheless, after a median follow-up of 13.5 years, nine of the 28 women with HGSC at RRSO developed a recurrence after a median of 6.9 years.</p

Long-term outcome of high-grade serous carcinoma established in risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy specimens in asymptomatic BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variant carriers

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the long-term outcome of asymptomatic BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variant (GPV) carriers with high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) in their risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) specimen. Methods: In a previously described cohort of asymptomatic BRCA1/2 GPV carriers derived from the Hereditary Breast and Ovarian cancer in the Netherlands (HEBON) study, women with HGSC at RRSO were identified. Main outcome was ten-year disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes were time to recurrence, ten-year disease-specific survival (DSS), ten-year overall survival (OS). Patient, disease and treatment characteristics associated with recurrence were described. Results: The 28 included women with HGSC at RRSO were diagnosed at a median age of 55.3 years (range: 33.5–74.3). After staging, eighteen women had (FIGO) stage I, three stage II and five had stage III disease. Two women did not undergo surgical staging and were classified as unknown stage. After a median follow-up of 13.5 years (range: 9.1–24.7), six women with stage I (33%), one woman with stage II (33%), two women with stage III (40%) and none of the women with unknown stage developed a recurrence. Median time to recurrence was 6.9 years (range: 0.8–9.2 years). Ten-year DFS was 68%, ten-year DSS was 88% and ten-year OS was 82%. Conclusion: Most asymptomatic BRCA1/2 GPV carriers with HGSC at RRSO were diagnosed at an early stage. Nevertheless, after a median follow-up of 13.5 years, nine of the 28 women with HGSC at RRSO developed a recurrence after a median of 6.9 years

Mendelian randomisation study of height and body mass index as modifiers of ovarian cancer risk in 22,588 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

BACKGROUND : Height and body mass index (BMI) are associated with higher ovarian cancer risk in the general population, but whether such associations exist among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unknown. METHODS : We applied a Mendelian randomisation approach to examine height/BMI with ovarian cancer risk using the Consortium of Investigators for the Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) data set, comprising 14,676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, with 2923 ovarian cancer cases. We created a height genetic score (height-GS) using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score (BMI-GS) using 93 BMI-associated variants. Associations were assessed using weighted Cox models. RESULTS : Observed height was not associated with ovarian cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07 per 10-cm increase in height, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94–1.23). Height-GS showed similar results (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.85–1.23). Higher BMI was significantly associated with increased risk in premenopausal women with HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.06–1.48) and HR = 1.59 (95% CI: 1.08–2.33) per 5-kg/m2 increase in observed and genetically determined BMI, respectively. No association was found for postmenopausal women. Interaction between menopausal status and BMI was significant (Pinteraction < 0.05). CONCUSION : Our observation of a positive association between BMI and ovarian cancer risk in premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is consistent with findings in the general population.https://www.nature.com/bjc2020-06-19hj2020Genetic