University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX, USA.
Genetic Risk Assessment Service, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
J Genet Couns. 2021 Jun;30(3):803-812. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1380. Epub 2021 Feb 6.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends clinical-grade genetic testing to confirm commercial results from direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) companies and third-party interpretation (TPI) services; however, the type of confirmatory testing that genetic counselors (GCs) recommend remains uncharacterized. Therefore, we aimed to describe GCs testing strategies for patients who have already obtained DTC-GT results (23andMe) or TPI data (Promethease) that reported a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant. We invited GCs specializing in clinical cancer genetics to complete an online survey distributed to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. The survey, completed by 80 respondents, contained case scenarios featuring probands with variable personal and family histories of cancer. Our results show that the majority of participating GCs have counseled patients for their health-related commercial test results; 94% have encountered patient DTC-GT reports (3 per year), and 69% have encountered patient TPI data (2 per year). Most participating GCs would recommend confirmatory clinical-grade testing for probands with a positive 23andMe BRCA1/2 result (77/80, 96%). However, there was strong variability between the type of recommended testing. Approximately 20% recommended single-site analysis, 11%-14% recommended the three Ashkenazi Jewish BRCA1/2 founder mutations, 4% recommended BRCA1/2 testing, and 61%-64% recommended multi-gene panel testing. The most commonly recommended panels were split between a breast and gynecological cancer-focused panel and a broad pan-cancer panel. The majority of participants (98%-100%) would also recommend confirmatory testing for patients with positive TPI data for BRCA1/2. Similarly, results were mixed between those who recommended targeted, single-site analysis (10%-15%) compared to a multi-gene panel (72%-83%). These data show that while most GCs were uniform in their practice of recommending confirmatory testing, they are mixed in their approach to the specific type of testing they would select. These results may help inform counseling approaches and consensus for this expanding group of patients.
美国国家综合癌症网络建议对直接面向消费者的基因检测(DTC-GT)公司和第三方解读(TPI)服务的商业结果进行临床级别的基因检测以确认结果;然而,遗传咨询师(GCs)推荐的确认性检测类型仍未确定。因此,我们旨在描述遗传咨询师针对已经获得 DTC-GT 结果(23andMe)或 TPI 数据(Promethease)的患者的检测策略,这些结果报告了 BRCA1/2 致病性变异。我们邀请专门从事临床癌症遗传学的遗传咨询师完成一项在线调查,该调查分发给全国遗传咨询师协会的成员。共有 80 名受访者完成了这项调查,调查内容包含了不同个人和家族癌症史的先证者的病例情况。我们的研究结果表明,大多数参与调查的遗传咨询师都曾为患者的健康相关商业检测结果提供过咨询;94%的遗传咨询师遇到过患者的 DTC-GT 报告(每年 3 例),69%的遗传咨询师遇到过患者的 TPI 数据(每年 2 例)。大多数参与调查的遗传咨询师会建议对 23andMe BRCA1/2 阳性结果的先证者进行确认性临床级检测(77/80,96%)。然而,建议的检测类型存在很大的差异。大约 20%的遗传咨询师建议进行单点分析,11%-14%的遗传咨询师建议进行 3 个阿什肯纳兹犹太 BRCA1/2 突变检测,4%的遗传咨询师建议进行 BRCA1/2 检测,61%-64%的遗传咨询师建议进行多基因面板检测。最常推荐的面板分为乳腺癌和妇科癌症相关的面板和广泛的泛癌症面板。大多数参与者(98%-100%)也会建议对 TPI 数据为 BRCA1/2 阳性的患者进行确认性检测。同样,与建议靶向单点分析(10%-15%)相比,建议多基因面板(72%-83%)的结果也存在差异。这些数据表明,虽然大多数遗传咨询师在推荐确认性检测方面是一致的,但他们在选择特定类型的检测方法上存在差异。这些结果可能有助于为这一不断扩大的患者群体提供咨询方法和共识。