Background To inform effective genomic medicine strategies, it is important to examine current approaches and gaps in well-established applications. Lynch syndrome (LS) causes 3–5% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). While guidelines commonly recommend LS tumour testing of all CRC patients, implementation in health systems is known to be highly variable. To provide insights on the heterogeneity in practice and current bottlenecks in a high-income country with universal healthcare, we characterise the approaches and gaps in LS testing and referral in seven Australian hospitals across three states. Methods We obtained surgery, pathology, and genetics services data for 1,624 patients who underwent CRC resections from 01/01/2017 to 31/12/2018 in the included hospitals. Results Tumour testing approaches differed between hospitals, with 0–19% of patients missing mismatch repair deficiency test results (total 211/1,624 patients). Tumour tests to exclude somatic MLH1 loss were incomplete at five hospitals (42/187 patients). Of 74 patients with tumour tests completed appropriately and indicating high risk of LS, 36 (49%) were missing a record of referral to genetics services for diagnostic testing, with higher missingness for older patients (0% of patients aged ≤ 40 years, 76% of patients aged > 70 years). Of 38 patients with high-risk tumour test results and genetics services referral, diagnostic testing was carried out for 25 (89%) and identified a LS pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant for 11 patients (44% of 25; 0.7% of 1,624 patients). Conclusions Given the LS testing and referral gaps, further work is needed to identify strategies for successful integration of LS testing into clinical care, and provide a model for hereditary cancers and broader genomic medicine. Standardised reporting may help clinicians interpret tumour test results and initiate further actions.
Background Fifteen percent of ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal (OTP) invasive epithelial cancers are linked to an underlying heritable pathogenic variant (PV) in the BRCA1/2 cancer susceptibility genes. Identifying a PV has management implications for an affected individual and relatives. Cancer team‐facilitated genetic testing (mainstreaming) aims to provide equitable systematic access to genetic testing for appropriate patients. Aim To evaluate a multi‐disciplinary team (MDT)‐led mainstream germline genetic testing program for OTP cancer at a tertiary referral centre. Materials and methods We conducted a retrospective review of our MDT‐led mainstream genetic testing program initiated in June 2017. We included all patients diagnosed with OTP cancer registered with the hospital gynaecological oncology MDT from program initiation to December 2020. Patients were considered eligible for testing if they were diagnosed with a high‐grade epithelial OTP AND ≤70 years, OR if >70 with a first/second degree relative with breast and/or ovarian cancer OR Jewish ancestry. Results Of 205 women diagnosed with high‐grade epithelial OTP cancer, 140 were eligible for mainstreaming. Eight‐five percent were mainstreamed, with the gynae‐oncologists facilitating 64.5% of tests. The overall PV detection rate in BRCA1/2 was 10.1% (BRCA1 n = 9, BRCA2 n = 3). The median turnaround time (TAT) was 44.5 days (range 16–118). All women with PV were referred to the Familial Cancer Service for further assessment and five (of six eligible; 83%) were subsequently treated with polyadenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase inhibitors. Cascade testing was undertaken in 75% of families with a mean of three relatives tested per proband. Conclusion Mainstreamed genetic testing is feasible, with an acceptable TAT, ensuring adequate opportunity to inform treatment decisions. Tumour testing and inclusion of moderate‐risk cancer predisposition genes in mainstreaming represent potential pathways that will require further exploration.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.