New approaches are required to address the needs of complex undiagnosed diseases patients. These approaches include clinical genomic diagnostic pipelines, utilizing intra- and multi-disciplinary ...platforms, as well as specialty-specific genomic clinics. Both are advancing diagnostic rates. However, complementary cross-disciplinary approaches are also critical to address those patients with multisystem disorders who traverse the bounds of multiple specialties and remain undiagnosed despite existing intra-specialty and genomic-focused approaches. The diagnostic possibilities of undiagnosed diseases include genetic and non-genetic conditions. The focus on genetic diseases addresses some of these disorders, however a cross-disciplinary approach is needed that also simultaneously addresses other disorder types. Herein, we describe the initiation and summary outcomes of a public health system approach for complex undiagnosed patients - the Undiagnosed Diseases Program-Western Australia (UDP-WA).
Briefly the UDP-WA is: i) one of a complementary suite of approaches that is being delivered within health service, and with community engagement, to address the needs of those with severe undiagnosed diseases; ii) delivered within a public health system to support equitable access to health care, including for those from remote and regional areas; iii) providing diagnoses and improved patient care; iv) delivering a platform for in-service and real time genomic and phenomic education for clinicians that traverses a diverse range of specialties; v) retaining and recapturing clinical expertise; vi) supporting the education of junior and more senior medical staff; vii) designed to integrate with clinical translational research; and viii) is supporting greater connectedness for patients, families and medical staff.
The UDP-WA has been initiated in the public health system to complement existing clinical genomic approaches; it has been targeted to those with a specific diagnostic need, and initiated by redirecting existing clinical and financial resources. The UDP-WA supports the provision of equitable and sustainable diagnostics and simultaneously supports capacity building in clinical care and translational research, for those with undiagnosed, typically rare, conditions.
We showed earlier that routine screening for microsatellite instability (MSI) and loss of mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression in colorectal cancer (CRC) led to the identification of previously ...unrecognized cases of Lynch syndrome (LS). We report here the results of screening for LS in Western Australia (WA) during 1994–2012. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for loss of MMR protein expression was performed in routine pathology laboratories, while MSI was detected in a reference molecular pathology laboratory. Information on germline mutations in MMR genes was obtained from the state's single familial cancer registry. Prior to the introduction of routine laboratory‐based screening, an average of 2–3 cases of LS were diagnosed each year amongst WA CRC patients. Following the implementation of IHC and/or MSI screening for all younger (<60 years) CRC patients, this has increased to an average of 8 LS cases diagnosed annually. Based on our experience in WA, we propose three key elements for successful population‐based screening of LS. First, for all younger CRC patients, reflex IHC testing should be carried out in accredited pathology services with ongoing quality control. Second, a state‐ or region‐wide reference laboratory for MSI testing should be established to confirm abnormal or suspicious IHC test results and to exclude sporadic cases by carrying out BRAF mutation or MLH1 methylation testing. Finally, a state or regional LS coordinator is essential to ensure that all appropriate cases identified by laboratory testing are referred to and attend a Familial Cancer Clinic for follow‐up and germline testing.
What's new?
If you have inherited a condition that increased your risk of a variety of cancers, you'd want to know about it ‐ and so would your family members. Thus, these authors set out to test a screening program for one such condition, Lynch syndrome. Previous methods relied on obtaining detailed family history, but recently these authors developed a laboratory test for Lynch syndrome. This study showed that widespread testing of younger colorectal cancer patients in Western Australia increased diagnosis of Lynch syndrome from 2‐3 cases to 8 cases per year. The authors propose that employing this screening program, in the context of a coordinated reference lab and follow up, could improve management of this condition.
The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of microsatellite instability (MSI+ ) in tumors from a population-based series of young colorectal cancer patients and its correlation with the ...loss of expression of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins. The BAT-26 mononucleotide repeat was used to screen for MSI+ in all colorectal cancers diagnosed in Western Australia throughout a 5-year period in patients <60 years of age. MSI+ was found in 75 of 1003 (7.5%) cases, of which six contained a concomitant mutation in BRAF and were therefore excluded from further investigations as possible hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Immunohistochemistry was used to evaluate expression of the four major MMR proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) in the remaining 69 MSI+ tumors. Complete loss of MLH1 and PMS2 expression or of MSH2 and MSH6 expression was found in 35 (51%) and 17 (25%) cases, respectively, whereas other patterns of complete loss were observed in eight cases (12%). Eight tumors (12%) were initially recorded as showing normal expression, but on review seven were reclassified as having abnormal staining because of heterogeneous patterns of MMR loss. Three of these seven cases had previously been found to have germline mutations. Because of possible misinterpretation of heterogeneous immunohistochemistry staining for MMR protein loss, MSI testing is recommended as the initial screen for population-based detection of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer.
The issue of recontacting past genetics patients is increasingly relevant, particularly with the introduction of next-generation sequencing. Improved testing can provide additional information on the ...pathogenicity and prevalence of genetic variants, often leading to a need to recontact patients. Some international genetics societies have position statements and recommendations to guide genetic health professionals (GHPs) navigating the legal, ethical and practical issues of recontacting. In the absence of a standardised Australasian protocol, we explored the experiences and opinions of Australasian GHPs regarding patient follow-up and recontacting practices. Forty-five respondents completed an online survey. Most respondents indicated that recontacting occurred on an ad hoc basis, but most genetic services relied on patients (or family) initiating recontact. Implementation of a routine recontacting system was widely dismissed by 73% of respondents, citing lack of resources, limited information on legal responsibility and setting unrealistic expectations as common barriers. If recontact was contemplated, e-communication was an acceptable first step. This study identified the need for integrated familial cancer registries to assist under-resourced genetic services to maintain up-to-date patient records. Developing a standard recontacting protocol with flexibility to account for patient individuality and circumstances might enable provision of equitable service within Australasia.
The aim of study was to determine the clinical characteristics and mutational profiles of the mismatch repair genes in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) patients with small bowel ...cancer (SBC).
A questionnaire was mailed to 55 members of the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours, requesting information regarding patients with HNPCC-associated SBC and germ line mismatch repair gene mutations.
The study population consisted of 85 HNPCC patients with identified mismatch repair gene mutations and SBCs. SBC was the first HNPCC-associated malignancy in 14 of 41 (34.1%) patients for whom a personal history of HNPCC-associated cancers was available. The study population harbored 69 different germ line mismatch repair gene mutations, including 31 mutations in MLH1, 34 in MSH2, 3 in MSH6, and 1 in PMS2. We compared the distribution of the mismatch repair mutations in our study population with that in a control group, including all pathogenic mismatch repair mutations of the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours database (excluding those in our study population). In patients with MSH2 mutations, patients with HNPCC-associated SBCs had fewer mutations in the MutL homologue interaction domain (2.9% versus 19.9%, P = 0.019) but an increased frequency of mutations in codons 626 to 733, a domain that has not previously been associated with a known function, versus the control group (26.5% versus 2.8%, P < 0.001).
In HNPCC patients, SBC can be the first and only cancer and may develop as soon as the early teens. The distribution of MSH2 mutations found in patients with HNPCC-associated SBCs significantly differed from that found in the control group (P < 0.001).
Gastric adenocarcinoma and proximal polyposis of the stomach (GAPPS) is an autosomal-dominant cancer-predisposition syndrome with a significant risk of gastric, but not colorectal, adenocarcinoma. We ...mapped the gene to 5q22 and found loss of the wild-type allele on 5q in fundic gland polyps from affected individuals. Whole-exome and -genome sequencing failed to find causal mutations but, through Sanger sequencing, we identified point mutations in APC promoter 1B that co-segregated with disease in all six families. The mutations reduced binding of the YY1 transcription factor and impaired activity of the APC promoter 1B in luciferase assays. Analysis of blood and saliva from carriers showed allelic imbalance of APC, suggesting that these mutations lead to decreased allele-specific expression in vivo. Similar mutations in APC promoter 1B occur in rare families with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Promoter 1A is methylated in GAPPS and sporadic FGPs and in normal stomach, which suggests that 1B transcripts are more important than 1A in gastric mucosa. This might explain why all known GAPPS-affected families carry promoter 1B point mutations but only rare FAP-affected families carry similar mutations, the colonic cells usually being protected by the expression of the 1A isoform. Gastric polyposis and cancer have been previously described in some FAP-affected individuals with large deletions around promoter 1B. Our finding that GAPPS is caused by point mutations in the same promoter suggests that families with mutations affecting the promoter 1B are at risk of gastric adenocarcinoma, regardless of whether or not colorectal polyps are present.
Global media has the power to influence the ways the public engage with health services. On May 14th 2013, Angelina Jolie published an article in the New York Times magazine, outlining her decision ...to undergo BRCA mutation testing due to a family history of cancer; then proceed with a mastectomy. The article evoked significant interest from the media and the public. During the months that followed, the Familial Cancer Program (FCP) at Genetic Services of Western Australia (GSWA) experienced a significant increase in referrals and enquiries. Resources were overstretched and it became clear we needed to adjust work practices to manage the escalating numbers. New strategies were devised to cope with the influx of enquiries, albeit without the benefit of additional resources. We conducted an audit of referrals to the FCP made between January 2012 and December 2014. This included a comparison of the months prior to and following the New York Times article. The aim of the audit was to quantify the impact of the “Angelina Jolie effect” on referrals to the FCP. Whilst the increased awareness of the role of genetic services in risk assessment and testing for familial breast and ovarian cancer was considered positive, pre-referral risk assessment at the primary health level to evaluate the appropriateness of their patients for referral could have been helpful. Potentially, many inappropriate referrals to FCP may have been avoided with primary health evaluation thus lessening the burden on our service and preventing unnecessary worry in well women who possessed minimal family history or risk factors. It is important to understand the factors driving the uptake of risk reduction activities, particularly if engagement with a genetics service is considered part of that pathway. Continued education about cancer risk due to family history, individual features and awareness surrounding genetic testing criteria, costs and availability is required for both the public and health professionals.
•A qualitative study of why gynecologic cancer patients decline genetic testing.•Themes identified included lack of importance and level of information received.•Timing of referral; fear and ...perceptions of counseling were also identified.•Most participants did not appreciate the potential benefits of testing.
The aim of the current study was to explore barriers to genetic counseling and testing in women with gynecological cancers deemed at significant risk of carrying a germline mutation.
A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and inductively analysed thematically. Eight patients with ovarian or endometrial cancer participated in individual semi-structured telephone interviews that assessed motivation for genetic counseling and testing, perceived benefits and barriers, timing of the approach, perceptions of the referral process to genetic services and locus of control in relation to cancer and health.
Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed five themes relating to perceptions of genetic counseling and testing: Lack of importance; Level of information received; Timing of referral processes; Fear and anxiety; Resistance to and perceptions of counseling.
Participants had a limited understanding of hereditary cancer syndromes and did not appreciate the benefits of genetic testing. A consistent approach at the time of referral to genetic services is needed to ensure that the level and format of information is appropriate for patients.
The rationale for genetic testing needs to be better explained to patients and the timing of referral should be based both on treatment priorities and patient preferences.
Patients with non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers should be referred for genetic testing because approximately 15% will carry an inherited mutation in the
cancer susceptibility genes. ...However, referral rates for genetic testing remain low. For patients who carry a
mutation, failure to refer for genetic testing results in missed opportunities for therapy and prevention of future cancers in the patient and at-risk relatives. In Western Australia between July 2013 and June 2015, 40.6% of patients with non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers discussed at a statewide gynecologic oncology tumor board were referred for genetic testing. Our objective was to investigate the proportion of patients with non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers in Western Australia referred for
testing from July 2015 to December 2017, following the introduction of mainstreaming and tele-counseling. A secondary aim was to compare the uptake of genetic testing between different genetic counseling modalities.
Retrospective case series. All patients with high-grade non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers discussed at the weekly Western Australian gynecologic oncology tumor board meeting, between July 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017, and those referred for
mutation testing, were ascertained.
A total of 343 women were eligible for referral; 63 patients were excluded, leaving 280 patients for analysis. 220/280 patients were referred for genetic testing (78.6%). There were no differences in uptake of genetic testing by mode of genetic counseling.
A significant increase in referrals of eligible patients for genetic testing was observed in 2015-2017 compared with 2013-2014. Although there were no differences in uptake of genetic testing by mode of counseling, mainstreaming and tele-counseling provide alternative options for patients that may lead to higher uptake of genetic testing.
PDF
