Original research article INTRODUCTION Multiplex (i.e., multigene) panels including both high-and moderate-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes are currently being used in clinical practice despite questions regarding their clinical utility and no standard approach to genetic counseling and delivery. [1][2][3][4][5][6] The inclusion of genes with varying penetrance and clinical utility has raised concerns. 7 There are both advantages and disadvantages of multigene testing (as opposed to traditional phenotype-driven sequential testing), presenting challenges to patient education and informed decision making.3,7-10 The advantages and disadvantages of testing options must be shared with patients so they can make an informed decision regarding genetic testing. 8,[11][12][13][14] Traditional comprehensive models for pretest counseling and informed consent could be associated with information overload and poor informed decision making. 7,15 In addition, multiplex testing has the potential to increase anxiety, uncertainty, and the adoption of inappropriate screening procedures or risk-reducing surgeries. 3,7 Effective genetic education and counseling could minimize these risks and enhance adaptive responses to receiving multiplex results. 13This study has several aims. First, we sought to obtain patient feedback regarding the tiered-binned model for informed consent and counseling for multiplex testing among patients with a personal or family history of breast cancer. Second, we sought to begin to evaluate patient uptake of testing after pretest counseling and to evaluate informed decision making with the tiered-binned model. Third, we sought to begin to explore short-term cognitive and affective outcomes in clinical populations to better understand the potential risks, benefits, and utilities of incorporating multiplex genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility assessment in clinical care. Purpose: The risks, benefits, and utilities of multiplex panels for breast cancer susceptibility are unknown, and new counseling and informed consent models are needed. We sought to obtain patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex testing.Methods: BRCA1/2-negative and untested patients completed preand posttest counseling and surveys evaluating testing experiences and cognitive and affective responses to multiplex testing. Results:Of 73 patients, 49 (67%) completed pretest counseling. BRCA1/2-negative patients were more likely to proceed with multiplex testing (86%) than those untested for BRCA1/2 (43%; P < 0.01). Many patients declining testing reported concern for uncertainty and distress. Most patients would not change anything about their pre-(76%) or posttest (89%) counseling sessions. Thirtythree patients (72%) were classified as making an informed choice, including 81% of those who proceeded with multiplex testing. Knowledge increased significantly. Anxiety, depression, uncertainty, and cancer worry did not significantly increase with multiplex testing. Conclusion:Some pati...

PURPOSE Women with breast cancer have a 4%-16% lifetime risk of a second primary cancer. Whether mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are enriched in patients with breast and another primary cancer over those with a single breast cancer (S-BC) is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS We identified pathogenic germline mutations in 17 cancer susceptibility genes in patients with BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer in 2 different cohorts: cohort 1, high-risk breast cancer program (multiple primary breast cancer [MP-BC], n = 551; S-BC, n = 449) and cohort 2, familial breast cancer research study (MP-BC, n = 340; S-BC, n = 1,464). Mutation rates in these 2 cohorts were compared with a control data set (Exome Aggregation Consortium [ExAC]). RESULTS Overall, pathogenic mutation rates for autosomal, dominantly inherited genes were higher in patients with MP-BC versus S-BC in both cohorts (8.5% v 4.9% [ P = .02] and 7.1% v 4.2% [ P = .03]). There were differences in individual gene mutation rates between cohorts. In both cohorts, younger age at first breast cancer was associated with higher mutation rates; the age of non–breast cancers was unrelated to mutation rate. TP53 and MSH6 mutations were significantly enriched in patients with MP-BC but not S-BC, whereas ATM and PALB2 mutations were significantly enriched in both groups compared with ExAC. CONCLUSION Mutation rates are at least 7% in all patients with BRCA1/2 mutation–negative MP-BC, regardless of age at diagnosis of breast cancer, with mutation rates up to 25% in patients with a first breast cancer diagnosed at age < 30 years. Our results suggest that all patients with breast cancer with a second primary cancer, regardless of age of onset, should undergo multigene panel testing.

PURPOSE Belize has one of the highest cervical cancer burdens among Latin American and Caribbean countries, despite the implementation of national policies to increase access to prevention and treatment services. This study evaluates the policies, infrastructure, and workforce of the cervical cancer management system in Belize to inform capacity building efforts. METHODS In 2018, health facility assessments were conducted across all six districts of Belize at the national pathology facility and 12 public facilities identified as critical to cervical cancer control. Human and infrastructure resource availability and existing policies related to cervical cancer screening and treatment services were assessed through a structured instrument. RESULTS The public cervical cancer screening workforce in Belize consists of 75 primary care nurses and physicians—one per 1,076 screening-eligible women, with 44% conducting rural outreach. All districts have at least one screening facility, but 50% perform screening services only once per week. Colposcopy and loop electrical excision procedures are available in three and four districts, respectively; radical hysterectomy and chemotherapy are available in two districts; and radiation therapy is unavailable. Of essential pathology equipment, 38.5% were present and functional, 23% were present but nonfunctional, and 38.5% were unavailable. Additionally, 35% of supplies were unavailable at the time of assessment, and 75% were unavailable at least once in the 12 months before assessment. CONCLUSION Public-sector cervical cancer management services differ among districts of Belize, with tertiary service availability concentrated in the largest district. Screening, outreach, and pathology are limited mostly by resource availability. This study characterizes the current capacity of services in Belize and pinpoints health system components for future investment and capacity-building efforts.

Purpose Belize has among the highest cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates of Latin American and Caribbean countries. This study evaluates the perspectives of key stakeholders for cervical cancer screening in Belize and identifies the barriers and facilitators for providing equitable access to prevention services. Methods Semi-structured interviews discussing cervical cancer screening were conducted with key stakeholders across the six districts of Belize in 2018. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically; themes were organized by levels of the social-ecological model. Results We conducted 47 interviews with health care providers (45%), administrators (17%), government officials (25%), and other stakeholders (13%). Majority (78%) of interviews were from the public sector. Perceived barriers to cervical cancer screening were identified across multiple levels: (1) Individual Patient: potential delays in Pap smear results and fear of a cancer diagnosis; (2) Provider: competing clinician responsibilities; (3) Organizational: insufficient space and training; (4) Community: reduced accessibility in rural areas; and (5) Policy: equipment and staffing budget limitations. The main facilitators we identified included the following: (1) at the Community level: resource-sharing between public and private sectors and dedicated rural outreach personnel; (2) at the Policy level: free public screening services and the establishment of population-based screening. Conclusion Despite free, publicly available cervical cancer screening in Belize, complex barriers affect access and completion of management when abnormal screening tests are identified. Provider workload, education outreach, and additional funding for training and facilities are potential areas for strengthening this program and increasing detection and management for cervical cancer control.