Ryan Noss

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 p...

Thrombocytopenia 2 (THC2) is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by ankyrin repeat domain 26 mutation and moderate thrombocytopenia. THC2 exposes patients to a low risk of bleeding and an increased likelihood of myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia. Germline evaluation for a genetic disorder should be considered when a patient presents with isolated thrombocytopenia and associated dysmegakaryopoiesis. In this case report, we present a male patient who presented with isolated thrombocytopenia but was ultimately confirmed to have an inherited THC2 thrombocytopenia/myelodysplastic syndrome. Given the rarity of the disease, no clear guidelines on how to follow THC2 patients over the long term have been established. We recommend a monthly complete blood count and clinical visits every 3 months at a minimum.

Genetic counseling assistants (GCAs) have the potential to address the high demand for genetic counselors by promoting task‐sharing, increasing genetic counselor efficiency, and allowing for higher level duties to be optimized by genetic counselors. However, little research has been published on the role of GCAs. This study explored current tasks of GCAs in the United States, the appropriateness of those tasks, the perceived impact on the profession, and how these findings compared between genetic counselors with and without GCAs. Full members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) with and without experience working with GCAs were recruited via the NSGC Student Research listserv to complete an online survey and 271 surveys were analyzed. Participants working in both clinical and laboratory settings and in all primary specialties reported working with GCAs (n = 131); GCAs were reported to frequently perform clerical tasks but were involved less often in clinical tasks such as calling patients with genetic test results. There was no difference between participants with GCAs and those without GCAs in tasks they reported GCAs are or may be performing, yet participants without GCAs believed GCAs performed more tasks on average than those with GCAs reported (p < 0.001). Participants did not differ on the appropriateness of tasks, reporting clerical tasks as more appropriate for GCAs than clinically involved tasks, with the exception of calling patients with variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results in which more participants working with GCAs reported it as an appropriate task (13%) than those without GCAs (4%; p < 0.05). Review of open‐ended responses revealed themes pertaining to primary limitations, benefits, and concerns of the GCA role. The most commonly reported concern about GCAs was their poorly defined scope of practice (n = 182). Other reported limitations included a heavy workload, lack of training, and lack of experience for GCAs while the benefits of working with GCAs included increased time available for higher level duties, patient volumes, and efficiency. These data provide genetic counselors, their institutions, and the NSGC with a more generalizable understanding of current GCA roles on a national level, across specialties. Additionally, these data may help establish a scope of practice for GCAs by creating a baseline job description for genetic counselors and their institutions interested in implementing a GCA into their practice to increase patient access to genetic counseling services. It is recommended that further research objectively quantify the value added by GCAs using efficiency metrics and further clarify the role of laboratory GCAs.

BACKGROUND With the advent of multigene panel testing for breast cancer patients, germline mutations with unknown association with cancer risk, known as variants of uncertain significance (VUS), are being increasingly identified. Some studies have shown higher rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomies (CPM) in these patients, despite lack of evidence to support this intervention. We analyzed surgical choices in patients who were identified to have VUS. STUDY DESIGN A retrospective review was performed of patients with triple-negative breast cancer treated at a single institution after multigene panel tests became available (September 1, 2013 to February 28, 2017). Rates of genetic testing, results of testing, and surgical decision making were evaluated. Chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical variables. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS There were 477 triple-negative breast cancer patients identified; 331 met established criteria for genetic testing and 226 (68.3%) underwent genetic testing (multigene panel, n = 130 and BRCA1/2 testing, n = 96). All of them received risk-appropriate genetic counseling and follow-up. Of these, 29 (12.8%) patients had pathogenic mutations in BRCA1/2 or PALB2 (Mut+), 42 (18.6%) had VUS (VUS+), and 155 (68.6%) had no mutations identified (Mut-). Variants of uncertain significance in 6 of 42 patients (14.3%) were later reclassified as normal variants. Eighty-eight percent of Mut+ patients underwent CPM compared with 20.1% of Mut- and 21.4% of VUS+ patients (p < 0.001 for both). Rates of CPM were not significantly different between VUS+ and Mut- (p = 0.37). Multigene panel testing detected pathogenic mutations in non-breast cancer-associated genes in 6 patients, with significant management implications. CONCLUSIONS When combined with risk-appropriate genetic counseling, detection of VUS did not lead to excessive CPM in this cohort of triple-negative breast cancer patients. Furthermore, panel testing detected mutations in non-breast cancer-associated genes, which had significant implications on management and outcomes.

Cowden syndrome (CS) is associated with benign hamartomatous lesions and risks for thyroid, breast and endometrial cancers. Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome is an allelic disorder characterised by macrocephaly, intestinal polyps, lipomas, and pigmented penile macules. Diagnostic criteria for CS are based on the presence of a range of clinical features. However, prior data on the component clinical features have been based primarily on compilations of cases reported before development of consensus diagnostic criteria. This study sought to determine the clinical features most predictive of a mutation in the largest single cohort of patients with clinical testing for PTEN mutations reported to date. Molecular and clinical data were reviewed on 802 patients referred for PTEN analysis by a single laboratory. Deleterious mutations were found in 172 (21.4%) subjects. Among mutation carriers significant differences from previous reports were found for the frequencies of several clinical features, including macrocephaly, uterine fibroids, benign breast disease, and endometrial cancer. Logistic regression analyses indicated that female mutation carriers were best identified by the presence of macrocephaly, endometrial cancer, trichilemmomas, papillomatous papules, breast cancer, benign thyroid disease, and benign gastrointestinal (GI) lesions. For males, the most discriminating features were macrocephaly, lipomas, papillomatous papules, penile freckling, benign GI lesions, and benign thyroid disease. Age related differences were also identified. The mutation frequency in patients meeting CS diagnostic criteria (34%) was significantly lower than previously reported, suggesting a need for reevaluation of these criteria. A mutation prediction model has been developed which can help identify patients appropriate for PTEN testing in clinical practice.

This study explored whether genetic counseling programs are incorporating instruction about the applications and techniques of predictive genomic testing (PGT) based on student recollection, and whether this is perceived as adequate by those students. For the purpose of this study, PGT was defined as the use of genome-based testing to assess a person's risk, or susceptibility, of developing a disorder with either a known or suspected genetic component. Surveys from 114 graduates were analyzed. The majority of respondents indicated that PGT was covered in their curriculum including methodology, information generated, benefits, risks, limitations, and impact on the field of genetic counseling. A statistically significant increase in incorporating information about PGT as a whole from 2008 to 2011 was also reported. The majority of respondents reported that coverage of PGT prepared them for the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) board exam (80.6 %), to interpret PGT test results (60.2 %) and to identify clinical situations warranting testing (53.1 %). Although the majority of respondents indicated learning about a wide variety of aspects surrounding PGT, many recent graduates indicated their training was less likely to cover aspects essential for the clinical application of PGT. Therefore, genetic counseling programs should place a greater emphasis on these skills, and the development of continuing education opportunities aimed at increasing genetic counselors abilities to interpret and discuss PGT tests and identify clinical situations warranting such testing may be helpful.