Although multigene panel testing is increasingly common in patients with cancer, the relationship between its use among breast cancer patients with non‐BRCA mutations or variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and disease management decisions has not been well described. This study evaluated the rate and predictive factors of CPM patients who underwent multigene panel testing. Three hundred and fourteen patients with breast cancer who underwent multigene panel testing between 2014 and 2017 were included in the analysis. Of the 314 patients, 70 elected CPM. Election of CPM by gene status was as follows: BRCA carriers (42.3%), non‐BRCA carriers (30.1%), and VUS (10.6%). CPM election rates did not differ between non‐BRCA carriers and BRCA carriers (P = 0.6205). Among non‐BRCA carriers, negative hormone receptor status was associated with CPM (P = 0.0115). For those with a VUS, hormone receptor status was not associated with CPM (P = 0.1879). Although the rate of CPM between BRCA carriers and non‐BRCA carriers was not significantly different, the predictors of CPM were different in each group. Our analyses shed the light on the increasing use of CPM among patients who are non‐BRCA carriers as well those with a VUS. Our study elucidates the differing predictive factors of CPM election among BRCA carriers, non‐BRCA carries, and those with a VUS. Our findings reveal the need for providers to be cognizant that non‐BRCA genes and VUS drive women to elect CPM despite the lack of data for contralateral breast cancer risk associated with these genes.

There was no clear association observed between BRCA pathogenic variants and IBC. However, among patients who tested positive for BRCA pathogenic variants, those with IBC were younger at the time of diagnosis compared with those with non-IBC breast cancers. These results confirm that genetic testing is important for patients with IBC who meet the current clinical criteria for genetic testing in breast cancer. Cancer 2018;124:466-74. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Objectives Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a serious health problem in New York City. Although curative treatments are available, many people are out of care. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) used surveillance data and various outreach methods to attempt to link to care people diagnosed with HCV infection from 2010 through 2015. Methods We randomly assigned people out of care (ie, no HCV test >6 months after first report) to 4 outreach groups: no outreach (control group); letter only; letter and telephone call; and letter, text message, and telephone call. Three months after outreach ended, we analyzed surveillance data to identify people with a subsequent HCV RNA or genotype test suggesting linkage to care. Results Of 2626 selected people, 199 (7.6%) had a subsequent HCV test. People in all 3 outreach groups had higher odds of a subsequent test than people in the control group (letter only: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.81 [95% CI, 1.18-2.91]; letter and telephone: aOR = 3.11 [95% CI, 1.67-5.79]; letter, text, and telephone: aOR = 3.17 [95% CI, 1.48-6.51]). People in the letter and telephone group had higher odds of a subsequent test than people in the letter-only group (aOR = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.04-2.74). Most people in the letter and telephone (136/200, 68.0%) and the letter, text, and telephone (71/99, 71.7%) groups could not be reached, primarily because telephone numbers were incorrect or out of service. Conclusion Reaching out to people soon after first report or prioritizing groups in which more recent contact information can be found might improve outcomes of future outreach.

With the expansion of hereditary cancer panel testing, it is vital to fully evaluate the benefits and limitations of each testing option to ensure proper patient care and prudent use of health care resources. Continuous education for health care providers is necessary for continued integration of genetic testing into oncology care.

Overview Understanding the etiology of cancer combines a multitude of factors including genetic, environmental, health, and lifestyle influences on the pathway to malignancy. While single‐gene‐inherited causes for cancer account for only 5–10% of cancer cases, identifying these individuals and their family members can provide insights into tumorigenesis, improvement in therapeutic outcomes, and prevention of cancer development in some cases. The process of evaluating an individual's cancer history as well as their family history is key in ascertaining those at risk for hereditary cancer.