Download PDF
Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2024; 37(03): 133-139
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1770381
Review Article

The Evolution of Genetic Testing from Focused Testing to Panel Testing and from Patient Focused to Population Testing: Are We There Yet?

Lauren Gima
1   Division of Clinical Cancer Genomics, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
,
Ilana Solomon
1   Division of Clinical Cancer Genomics, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
,
Heather Hampel
1   Division of Clinical Cancer Genomics, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The field of cancer genetics has evolved significantly over the past 30 years. Genetic testing has become less expensive and more comprehensive which has changed practice patterns. It is no longer necessary to restrict testing to those with the highest likelihood of testing positive. In addition, we have learned that the criteria developed to determine who has the highest likelihood of testing positive are neither sensitive nor specific. As a result, the field is moving from testing only the highest risk patients identified based on testing criteria to testing all cancer patients. This requires new service delivery models where testing can be mainstreamed into oncology clinics and posttest genetic counseling can be provided to individuals who test positive and those with concerning personal or family histories who test negative. The use of videos, testing kiosks, chatbots, and genetic counseling assistants have been employed to help facilitate testing at a larger scale and have good patient uptake and satisfaction. While testing is important for cancer patients as it may impact their treatment, future cancer risks, and family member's cancer risks, it is unfortunate that their cancer could not be prevented in the first place. Population testing for all adults would be a strategy to identify individuals with adult-onset diseases before they develop cancer in an attempt to prevent it entirely. A few research studies (Healthy Nevada and MyCode) have offered population testing for the three Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tier 1 conditions: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, Lynch syndrome, and familial hypercholesterolemia finding a prevalence of 1 in 70 individuals in the general population. We anticipate that testing for all cancer patients and the general population will continue to increase over the next 20 years and the genetics community needs to help lead the way to ensure this happens in a responsible manner.

Keywords

germline - genetic - testing - colorectal cancer - history


Publication History

Article published online:
19 July 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Schneider KA. Counseling about Cancer: Strategies for Genetic Counselors. Dennisport, MA: Graphic Illusions; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Peters JA, Stopfer JE. Role of the genetic counselor in familial cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 1996; 10 (02) 159-166 , 175, discussion 176–6, 178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Richards MP, Hallowell N, Green JM, Murton F, Statham H. Counseling families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a psychosocial perspective. J Genet Couns 1995; 4 (03) 219-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Schneider KA, Marnane D. Cancer risk counseling: how is it different?. J Genet Couns 1997; 6 (02) 97-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Statement of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Statement of the American Society of Clinical Oncology: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, Adopted on February 20, 1996. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14 (05) 1730-1736 , discussion 1737–1740
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Esplin ED, Nielsen SM, Bristow SL. et al. Universal germline genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes in patients with solid tumor cancer. JCO Precis Oncol 2022; 6: e2100516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bonis PA, Trikalinos TA, Chung M. et al. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: diagnostic strategies and their implications. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2007; (150) 1-180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Schlich-Bakker KJ, ten Kroode HF, Ausems MG. A literature review of the psychological impact of genetic testing on breast cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 62 (01) 13-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 NCCN. NCCN Guidelines: Ovarian Cancer/Fallopian Tube Cancer/Primary Peritoneal Cancer (Version 1.2022). 2022
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 NCCN. NCCN Guidelines: Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (Version 1.2022);. 2022 . Accessed June 2, 2023 at: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=1&id=1455
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 NCCN. NCCN Guidelines: Prostate Cancer (Version 3.2022). 2022 . Accessed June 2, 2023 at: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=1&id=1459
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Yurgelun MB, Kulke MH, Fuchs CS. et al. Cancer susceptibility gene mutations in individuals with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35 (10) 1086-1095
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Uson Jr PLS, Riegert-Johnson D, Boardman L. et al. Germline cancer susceptibility gene testing in unselected patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma: a multicenter prospective study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20 (03) e508-e528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pearlman R, Frankel WL, Swanson BJ. et al. Prospective statewide study of universal screening for hereditary colorectal cancer: the Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative. JCO Precis Oncol 2021; 5: 5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mandelker D, Zhang L, Kemel Y. et al. Mutation detection in patients with advanced cancer by universal sequencing of cancer-related genes in tumor and normal DNA vs guideline-based germline testing. JAMA 2017; 318 (09) 825-835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hampel H, Bennett RL, Buchanan A, Pearlman R, Wiesner GL. . Guideline Development Group,, American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Professional Practice and Guidelines Committee and National Society of Genetic Counselors Practice Guidelines Committee. A practice guideline from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors: referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment. Genet Med 2015; 17 (01) 70-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Burt RW, Barthel JS, Dunn KB. et al; NCCN. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8 (01) 8-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hampel H, Yurgelun MB. Point/counterpoint: is it time for universal germline genetic testing for all GI cancers?. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40 (24) 2681-2692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chittenden A, Haraldsdottir S, Ukaegbu C. et al. Implementing systematic genetic counseling and multigene germline testing for individuals with pancreatic cancer. JCO Oncol Pract 2021; 17 (02) e236-e247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Uson Jr PLS, Samadder NJ, Riegert-Johnson D. et al. Clinical impact of pathogenic germline variants in pancreatic cancer: results from a multicenter, prospective, universal genetic testing study. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2021; 12 (10) e00414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jahn A, Rump A, Widmann TJ. et al. Comprehensive cancer predisposition testing within the prospective MASTER trial identifies hereditary cancer patients and supports treatment decisions for rare cancers. Ann Oncol 2022; 33 (11) 1186-1199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Whitworth PW, Beitsch PD, Patel R. et al. Clinical utility of universal germline genetic testing for patients with breast cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5 (09) e2232787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Frey MK, Finch A, Kulkarni A, Akbari MR, Chapman-Davis E. Genetic testing for all: overcoming disparities in ovarian cancer genetic testing. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2022; 42 (42) 1-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Choi JJ, Fikre T, Fischman A, Buck AK, Ko NY. The role of race and insurance status in access to genetic counseling and testing among high-risk breast cancer patients. Oncologist 2022; 27 (10) 832-838
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Powell CB, Laurent C, Garcia C. et al. Factors influencing genetic counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome in a large US health care system. Clin Genet 2022; 101 (03) 324-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Khan A, Rogers CR, Kennedy CD, Lopez A, Jeter J. Genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer syndromes among African Americans: a critical review. Oncologist 2022; 27 (04) 285-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Grzymski JJ, Elhanan G, Morales Rosado JA. et al. Population genetic screening efficiently identifies carriers of autosomal dominant diseases. Nat Med 2020; 26 (08) 1235-1239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Metcalfe KA, Mian N, Enmore M. et al. Long-term follow-up of Jewish women with a BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation who underwent population genetic screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 133 (02) 735-740
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Manchanda R, Patel S, Gordeev VS. et al. Cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1, PALB2 mutation testing in unselected general population women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018; 110 (07) 714-725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Manchanda R, Legood R, Burnell M. et al. Cost-effectiveness of population screening for BRCA mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish women compared with family history-based testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 107 (01) 380
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mighton C, Shickh S, Aguda V, Krishnapillai S, Adi-Wauran E, Bombard Y. From the patient to the population: use of genomics for population screening. Front Genet 2022; 13: 893832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Levine MD, Barrington DA, Hampel H, Goodfellow PJ, Cohn DE. Implementing universal upfront multi-gene panel testing in endometrial cancer: from cost to practical considerations. Gynecol Oncol 2022; 166 (03) 538-542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Dasgupta S, Feldman GL, Powell CM. et al. Training the next generation of genomic medicine providers: trends in medical education and national assessment. Genet Med 2020; 22 (10) 1718-1722
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Haspel RL, Genzen JR, Wagner J, Fong K, Wilcox RL. . Undergraduate Training in Genomics (UTRIG) Working Group. Call for improvement in medical school training in genetics: results of a national survey. Genet Med 2021; 23 (06) 1151-1157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hamilton JG, Abdiwahab E, Edwards HM, Fang ML, Jdayani A, Breslau ES. Primary care providers' cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: a systematic review and research agenda. J Gen Intern Med 2017; 32 (03) 315-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Campion M, Goldgar C, Hopkin RJ, Prows CA, Dasgupta S. Genomic education for the next generation of health-care providers. Genet Med 2019; 21 (11) 2422-2430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Wentzensen N, Berg CD. Population testing for high penetrance genes: are we there yet?. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018; 110 (07) 687-689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Mahon SM. Errors in genetic testing: common causes and strategies for prevention. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2017; 21 (06) 673-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Foss KS, O'Daniel JM, Berg JS. et al. The rise of population genomic screening: characteristics of current programs and the need for evidence regarding optimal implementation. J Pers Med 2022; 12 (05) 692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 King MC, Levy-Lahad E, Lahad A. Population-based screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2: 2014 Lasker Award. JAMA 2014; 312 (11) 1091-1092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Foulkes WD, Knoppers BM, Turnbull C. Population genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: founder mutations to genomes. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016; 13 (01) 41-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Amendola LM, Hart MR, Bennett RL. et al. Insurance coverage does not predict outcomes of genetic testing: the search for meaning in payer decisions for germline cancer tests. J Genet Couns 2019; 28 (06) 1208-1213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Szymaniak BM, Facchini LA, Giri VN. et al. Practical considerations and challenges for germline genetic testing in patients with prostate cancer: recommendations from the germline genetics working group of the PCCTC. JCO Oncol Pract 2020; 16 (12) 811-819
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Cohen SA, Bradbury A, Henderson V, Hoskins K, Bednar E, Arun BK. Genetic counseling and testing in a community setting: quality, access, and efficiency. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2019; 39: e34-e44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Khoury MJ, Bowen S, Dotson WD. et al. Health equity in the implementation of genomics and precision medicine: a public health imperative. Genet Med 2022; 24 (08) 1630-1639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Ndugga-Kabuye MK, Issaka RB. Inequities in multi-gene hereditary cancer testing: lower diagnostic yield and higher VUS rate in individuals who identify as Hispanic, African or Asian and Pacific Islander as compared to European. Fam Cancer 2019; 18 (04) 465-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Coughlin SE, Heald B, Clark DF. et al. Multigene panel testing yields high rates of clinically actionable variants among patients with colorectal cancer. JCO Precis Oncol 2022; 6: e2200517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar