An analysis of the impact of annual cancer genetic testing guideline updates on a past patient population.

Publisher: Wiley Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 9206865 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1573-3599 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 10597700 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Genet Couns Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: 2019- : [Hoboken, NJ] : Wiley
Original Publication: New York, N.Y. : Human Sciences Press, c1992-

Genetic Testing*/methods; Humans ; Female ; Retrospective Studies ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Adult ; Neoplasms/genetics ; Genetic Predisposition to Disease ; Genetic Counseling ; Practice Guidelines as Topic

Germline genetic testing for cancer predisposition genes has become an essential component of cancer treatment and risk reduction. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) releases annual genetic testing guidelines that identify characteristics of patients that could be affected by a hereditary cancer syndrome. These guidelines have broadened over time and the implications for past patients of cancer genetics clinics are not well understood. This study is a retrospective chart review aimed at determining the percentage and characteristics of past patients that meet updated NCCN guidelines (Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreas [BOP] v1.2022 and Colorectal [CRC] v1.2021), patients that attended a follow-up appointment, and patients who went on to receive genetic testing. Clinical data and characteristics were compared between the study population as a whole and the cohort of patients that met updated NCCN guidelines BOP v1.2022 and CRC v1.2021. The study population consisted of 280 patients with 76 (27.1%) patients meeting updated NCCN guidelines BOP v1.2022 and CRC v1.2021. The year of initial cancer genetic counseling appointment was statistically significant (p = 0.023) with patients more likely to meet NCCN guidelines BOP v1.2022 and CRC v1.2021 with earlier initial cancer genetic counseling appointments. In the cohort that met updated NCCN guidelines BOP v1.2022 and CRC v1.2021, the most common reason was a change in the NCCN guidelines (BOP or CRC) (54/76, 71.1%) with triple-negative breast cancer diagnosed at any age being the most impactful guideline change (19/54, 35.2%). Twenty-one patients attended a follow-up appointment (7.5%) and of those that received genetic testing (17/21, 81%) most received negative results (13/17, 61.9%), with one pathogenic, low penetrance result (1/17, 5.9%, CHEK2 p.I157T). Provider-initiated follow-up was attributed to most follow-up appointments (16/21, 76.2%) implying patients do not tend to follow-up on their own. Education to non-genetics providers as well as targeted implementation of follow-up protocols possibly managed by genetic counseling assistants and utilizing electronic medical record (EMR) patient messaging could lead to improved patient follow-up.
(© 2023 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Alberty‐Oller, J. J., Weltz, S., Santos, A., Pisapati, K., Ru, M., Weltz, C., & Port, E. (2021). Adherence to NCCN guidelines for genetic testing in breast cancer patients: Who are we missing? Annals of Surgical Oncology, 28(1), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434‐020‐09123‐z.
Chou, W.‐Y. S., Tiner, J., & Senft, N. (2022). Emerging challenges in advanced cancer care: Opportunities for enhancing patient‐centered communication. Psychological Aspects of Cancer, Published online, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐85702‐8_12.
Febbraro, T., Robison, K., Wilbur, J. S., Laprise, J., Bregar, A., Lopes, V., & Stuckey, A. (2015). Adherence patterns to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for referral to cancer genetic professionals. Gynecologic Oncology, 138(1), 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.04.029.
Golan, T., Hammel, P., Reni, M., Van Cutsem, E., Macarulla, T., Hall, M. J., & Kindler, H. L. (2019). Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA‐mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 381(4), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1903387.
Grant, P., Langlois, S., Lynd, L. D., Austin, J. C., Elliott, A. M., Dragojlovic, N., & Zawati, M. (2021). Out‐of‐pocket and private pay in clinical genetic testing: A scoping review. Clinical Genetics, 100, 504–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.14006.
Griffin, C. A., Axilbund, J. E., Codori, A. M., Deise, G., May, B., Pendergrass, C., & Giardiello, F. M. (2007). Patient preferences regarding recontact by cancer genetics clinicians. Familial Cancer, 6(3), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689‐007‐9117‐0.
Hallenstein, L. G., Sorensen, C., Hodgson, L., Wen, S., Westhuyzen, J., Hansen, C., & Aherne, N. J. (2021). Assessment of genetic referrals and outcomes for women with triple negative breast cancer in regional cancer centres in Australia. Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice, 19(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053‐021‐00176‐z.
Hallquist, M. L. G., Tricou, E. P., Hallquist, M. N., Savatt, J. M., Rocha, H., Evans, A. E., & Buchanan, A. H. (2020). Positive impact of genetic counseling assistants on genetic counseling efficiency, patient volume, and cost in a cancer genetics clinic. Genetics in Medicine, 22(8), 1348–1354. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436‐020‐0797‐2.
Hampel, H. (2009). Recontacting patients who have tested negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: How, who and why? Journal of Genetic Counseling, 18, 527–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897‐009‐9254‐8.
Hnatiuk, M. J., Noss, R., Mitchell, A. L., & Matthews, A. L. (2019). The current state of genetic counseling assistants in the United States. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 28(5), 962–973. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1148.
Hooker, G. W., Clemens, K. R., Quillin, J., Vogel Postula, K. J., Summerour, P., Nagy, R., & Buchanan, A. H. (2017). Cancer genetic counseling and testing in an era of rapid change. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26(6), 1244–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897‐017‐0099‐2.
Katsanis, S. H., & Katsanis, N. (2013). Molecular genetic testing and the future of clinical genomics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 14, 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3493.
Mooney, R., Espinel, W., Elrick, A., Kehoe, K., Kohlmann, W., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2022). Uptake of genetic counseling and multi‐gene panel testing among women in the intermountain west with previous negative BRCA1 and BRCA2 results contacted for updated testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 31(2), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1513.
Mueller, A., Dalton, E., Enserro, D., Wang, C., & Flynn, M. (2019). Recontact practices of cancer genetic counselors and an exploration of professional, legal, and ethical duty. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 28(4), 836–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1126.
Otten, E., Plantinga, M., Birnie, E., Verkerk, M. A., Lucassen, A. M., Ranchor, A. V., & Van Langen, I. M. (2015). Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature. Genetics in Medicine, 17(8), 668–678. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2014.173.
Pan, V., Yashar, B. M., Pothast, R., & Wicklund, C. (2016). Expanding the genetic counseling workforce: Program directors' views on increasing the size of genetic counseling graduate programs. Genetics in Medicine, 18(8), 842–849. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.179.
Pirzadeh‐Miller, S., Robinson, L. S., Read, P., & Ross, T. S. (2017). Genetic counseling assistants: An integral piece of the evolving genetic counseling service delivery model. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26(4), 716–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897‐016‐0039‐6.
Romero Arenas, M. A., Rich, T. A., Hyde, S. M., Busaidy, N. L., Cote, G. J., Hu, M. I., & Grubbs, E. G. (2018). Recontacting patients with updated genetic testing recommendations for medullary thyroid carcinoma and pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 25(5), 1395–1402. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434‐018‐6366‐0.
Sawyer, L., Creswick, H., Lewandowski, R., & Quillin, J. (2019). Recontacting patients for multigene panel testing in hereditary cancer: Efficacy and insights. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 28(6), 1198–1207. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1173.
Schienda, J., & Stopfer, J. (2020). Cancer genetic counseling—Current practice and future challenges. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, 10(6), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a036541.
Stevens, Y. A., Senner, G. D., & Marchant, G. E. (2017). Physicians' duty to recontact and update genetic advice. Personalized Medicine, 14(4), 367–374. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme‐2017‐0012.
Stoll, K., Kubendran, S., & Cohen, S. A. (2018). The past, present and future of service delivery in genetic counseling: Keeping up in the era of precision medicine. American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics, 178(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.31602.
Yadav, S., Reeves, A., Campian, S., Sufka, A., & Zakalik, D. (2017). Preoperative genetic testing impacts surgical decision making in BRCA mutation carriers with breast cancer: A retrospective cohort analysis. Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice, 15(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053‐017‐0071‐z.

Case Western Reserve University

Keywords: cancer genetics; genetic services; national comprehensive cancer network; patient follow‐up; predictive genetic testing; referral practices

Date Created: 20231031 Date Completed: 20241013 Latest Revision: 20241013

20241013

10.1002/jgc4.1822

37907432