Combining evidence for and against pathogenicity for variants in cancer susceptibility genes: CanVIG-UK consensus recommendations.

Accurate classification of variants in cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) is key for correct estimation of cancer risk and management of patients. Consistency in the weighting assigned to individual elements of evidence has been much improved by the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) 2015 framework for variant classification, UK Association for Clinical Genomic Science (UK-ACGS) Best Practice Guidelines and subsequent Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK (CanVIG-UK) consensus specification for CSGs. However, considerable inconsistency persists regarding practice in the combination of evidence elements. CanVIG-UK is a national subspecialist multidisciplinary network for cancer susceptibility genomic variant interpretation, comprising clinical scientist and clinical geneticist representation from each of the 25 diagnostic laboratories/clinical genetic units across the UK and Republic of Ireland. Here, we summarise the aggregated evidence elements and combinations possible within different variant classification schemata currently employed for CSGs (ACMG, UK-ACGS, CanVIG-UK and ClinGen gene-specific guidance for PTEN, TP53 and CDH1). We present consensus recommendations from CanVIG-UK regarding (1) consistent scoring for combinations of evidence elements using a validated numerical 'exponent score' (2) new combinations of evidence elements constituting likely pathogenic' and 'pathogenic' classification categories, (3) which evidence elements can and cannot be used in combination for specific variant types and (4) classification of variants for which there are evidence elements for both pathogenicity and benignity

Utility of polygenic risk scores in UK cancer screening:a modelling analysis

This work was funded by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Fellowship. CH is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Training Fellowship (203924/Z/16/Z). RSH acknowledges grant support from Cancer Research UK (C1298/A8362) and the Wellcome Trust (214388). AS is in receipt of a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Lectureship, funding from the Royal Marsden Biomedical Research Centre, and is recipient of the Whitney-Wood Scholarship from the Royal College of Physicians. CT, CFR, HH, KS, RW, and BT acknowledge grant support from Cancer Research UK (C8620/A8372). MEJ receives funding from Breast Cancer Now.It is proposed that, through restriction to individuals delineated as high risk, polygenic risk scores (PRSs) might enable more efficient targeting of existing cancer screening programmes and enable extension into new age ranges and disease types. To address this proposition, we present an overview of the performance of PRS tools (ie, models and sets of single nucleotide polymorphisms) alongside harms and benefits of PRS-stratified cancer screening for eight example cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, pancreas, ovary, kidney, lung, and testicular cancer). For this modelling analysis, we used age-stratified cancer incidences for the UK population from the National Cancer Registration Dataset (2016-18) and published estimates of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for current, future, and optimised PRS for each of the eight cancer types. For each of five PRS-defined high-risk quantiles (ie, the top 50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, and 1%) and according to each of the three PRS tools (ie, current, future, and optimised) for the eight cancers, we calculated the relative proportion of cancers arising, the odds ratios of a cancer arising compared with the UK population average, and the lifetime cancer risk. We examined maximal attainable rates of cancer detection by age stratum from combining PRS-based stratification with cancer screening tools and modelled the maximal impact on cancer-specific survival of hypothetical new UK programmes of PRS-stratified screening. The PRS-defined high-risk quintile (20%) of the population was estimated to capture 37% of breast cancer cases, 46% of prostate cancer cases, 34% of colorectal cancer cases, 29% of pancreatic cancer cases, 26% of ovarian cancer cases, 22% of renal cancer cases, 26% of lung cancer cases, and 47% of testicular cancer cases. Extending UK screening programmes to a PRS-defined high-risk quintile including people aged 40-49 years for breast cancer, 50-59 years for colorectal cancer, and 60-69 years for prostate cancer has the potential to avert, respectively, a maximum of 102, 188, and 158 deaths annually. Unstratified screening of the full population aged 48-49 years for breast cancer, 58-59 years for colorectal cancer, and 68-69 years for prostate cancer would use equivalent resources and avert, respectively, an estimated maximum of 80, 155, and 95 deaths annually. These maximal modelled numbers will be substantially attenuated by incomplete population uptake of PRS profiling and cancer screening, interval cancers, non-European ancestry, and other factors. Under favourable assumptions, our modelling suggests modest potential efficiency gain in cancer case detection and deaths averted for hypothetical new PRS-stratified screening programmes for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Restriction of screening to high-risk quantiles means many or most incident cancers will arise in those assigned as being low-risk. To quantify real-world clinical impact, costs, and harms, UK-specific cluster-randomised trials are required.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

UK consensus recommendations for clinical management of cancer risk for women with germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes; RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1 and PALB2

Germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in the cancer predisposition genes BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C are identified in approximately 15% of patients with ovarian cancer (OC). While there are clear guidelines around clinical management of cancer risk in patients with GPV in BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6, there are few guidelines on how to manage the more moderate OC risk in patients with GPV in BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C, with clinical questions about appropriateness and timing of risk-reducing gynaecological surgery. Furthermore, while recognition of RAD51C and RAD51D as OC predisposition genes has been established for several years, an association with breast cancer (BC) has only more recently been described and clinical management of this risk has been unclear. With expansion of genetic testing of these genes to all patients with non-mucinous OC, new data on BC risk and improved estimates of OC risk, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and CanGene-CanVar project convened a 2-day meeting to reach a national consensus on clinical management of BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C carriers in clinical practice. In this paper, we present a summary of the processes used to reach and agree on a consensus, as well as the key recommendations from the meeting

‘A good decision is the one that feels right for me’: codesign with patients to inform theoretical underpinning of a decision aid website

Introduction: patient decision aids (PtDA) complement shared decision-making with healthcare professionals and improve decision quality. However, PtDA often lack theoretical underpinning. We are codesigning a PtDA to help people with increased genetic cancer risks manage choices. The aim of an innovative workshop described here was to engage with the people who will use the PtDA regarding the theoretical underpinning and logic model outlining our hypothesis of how the PtDA would lead to more informed decision-making. Methods: short presentations about psychological and behavioural theories by an expert were interspersed with facilitated, small-group discussions led by patients. Patients were asked what is important to them when they make health decisions, what theoretical constructs are most meaningful and how this should be applied to codesign of a PtDA. An artist created a visual summary. Notes from patient discussions and the artwork were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: the overarching theme was: It's personal. Contextual factors important for decision-making were varied and changed over time. There was no one ‘best fit’ theory to target support needs in a PtDA, suggesting an inductive, flexible framework approach to programme theory would be most effective. The PtDA logic model was revised based on patient feedback. Conclusion: meaningful codesign of PtDA including discussions about the theoretical mechanisms through which they support decision-making has the potential to lead to improved patient care through understanding the intricately personal nature of health decisions, and tailoring content and format for holistic care. Patient Contribution: Patients with lived experience were involved in codesign and coproduction of this workshop and analysis as partners and coauthors. Patient discussions were the primary data source. Facilitators provided a semi-structured guide, but they did not influence the patient discussions or provide clinical advice. The premise of this workshop was to prioritise the importance of patient lived experience: to listen, learn, then reflect together to understand and propose ideas to improve patient care through codesign of a PtDA.</p

Recommendations for laboratory workflow that better support centralised amalgamation of genomic variant data: findings from CanVIG-UK national molecular laboratory survey.

Peer reviewed: TrueBACKGROUND: National and international amalgamation of genomic data offers opportunity for research and audit, including analyses enabling improved classification of variants of uncertain significance. Review of individual-level data from National Health Service (NHS) testing of cancer susceptibility genes (2002-2023) submitted to the National Disease Registration Service revealed heterogeneity across participating laboratories regarding (1) the structure, quality and completeness of submitted data, and (2) the ease with which that data could be assembled locally for submission. METHODS: In May 2023, we undertook a closed online survey of 51 clinical scientists who provided consensus responses representing all 17 of 17 NHS molecular genetic laboratories in England and Wales which undertake NHS diagnostic analyses of cancer susceptibility genes. The survey included 18 questions relating to 'next-generation sequencing workflow' (11), 'variant classification' (3) and 'phenotypical context' (4). RESULTS: Widely differing processes were reported for transfer of variant data into their local LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System), for the formatting in which the variants are stored in the LIMS and which classes of variants are retained in the local LIMS. Differing local provisions and workflow for variant classifications were also reported, including the resources provided and the mechanisms by which classifications are stored. CONCLUSION: The survey responses illustrate heterogeneous laboratory workflow for preparation of genomic variant data from local LIMS for centralised submission. Workflow is often labour-intensive and inefficient, involving multiple manual steps which introduce opportunities for error. These survey findings and adoption of the concomitant recommendations may support improvement in laboratory dataflows, better facilitating submission of data for central amalgamation

Germline mismatch repair (MMR) gene analyses from English NHS regional molecular genomics laboratories 1996-2020: development of a national resource of patient-level genomics laboratory records.

Peer reviewed: TrueOBJECTIVE: To describe national patterns of National Health Service (NHS) analysis of mismatch repair (MMR) genes in England using individual-level data submitted to the National Disease Registration Service (NDRS) by the NHS regional molecular genetics laboratories. DESIGN: Laboratories submitted individual-level patient data to NDRS against a prescribed data model, including (1) patient identifiers, (2) test episode data, (3) per-gene results and (4) detected sequence variants. Individualised per-laboratory algorithms were designed and applied in NDRS to extract and map the data to the common data model. Laboratory-level MMR activity audit data from the Clinical Molecular Genetics Society/Association of Clinical Genomic Science were used to assess early years' missing data. RESULTS: Individual-level data from patients undergoing NHS MMR germline genetic testing were submitted from all 13 English laboratories performing MMR analyses, comprising in total 16 722 patients (9649 full-gene, 7073 targeted), with the earliest submission from 2000. The NDRS dataset is estimated to comprise >60% of NHS MMR analyses performed since inception of NHS MMR analysis, with complete national data for full-gene analyses for 2016 onwards. Out of 9649 full-gene tests, 2724 had an abnormal result, approximately 70% of which were (likely) pathogenic. Data linkage to the National Cancer Registry demonstrated colorectal cancer was the most frequent cancer type in which full-gene analysis was performed. CONCLUSION: The NDRS MMR dataset is a unique national pan-laboratory amalgamation of individual-level clinical and genomic patient data with pseudonymised identifiers enabling linkage to other national datasets. This growing resource will enable longitudinal research and can form the basis of a live national genomic disease registry