Results from London Regional Clinical Genetics services over a 5-year period on germline TP53 testing in women diagnosed with breast cancer at <30 years

BackgroundThe most common cancer diagnosed in germline TP53 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers is premenopausal breast cancer. An increased rate of breast tumour HER2 positivity has been reported in this group. Screening for breast/other cancers is recommended in PV carriers.Objectives1. To assess the frequency of germline TP53 PVs reported diagnostically in women with breast cancer at <30 years of age.2. To evaluate the impact of personal/family history and HER2 status on the likelihood of germline TP53 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (PV/LPV) identification.MethodsGenetic test results from patients undergoing diagnostic germline TP53 tests between 2012 and 2017 in the four London Regional Clinical Genetics Services were reviewed. Clinical/pathology data and family history were extracted from genetics files for women diagnosed with breast cancer at <30 years.ResultsThe overall germline TP53 PV/LPV variant detection rate was 9/270=3.3% in all women diagnosed with breast cancer at <30 years and 2/171=1.2% in those with no second/subsequent cancer diagnosis or family history of TP53-spectrum cancers. Breast cancers were significantly more likely to be HER2-positive in TP53 PV/LPV carriers than in non-carriers (p=0.00006).ConclusionsGermline TP53 PVs/LPVs are uncommon among women diagnosed with breast cancer aged <30 years without other relevant personal or family cancer history but have an important clinical impact when identified.

“This is my boy’s health! Talk straight to me!” perspectives on accessible and culturally safe care among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients of clinical genetics services

Background Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not enjoy equal access to specialist health services that adequately meet their needs. Clinical genetics services are at the vanguard of realising the health benefits of genomic medicine. As the field continues to expand in clinical utility and implementation, it is critical that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are able to participate and benefit equally to avoid further widening of the existing health gap. This is the first study to explore barriers to accessing clinical genetics services among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which has been acknowledged as a key strategic priority in Australian genomic health policy. Methods A participatory design process engaged a majority-Aboriginal Project Reference Group and Aboriginal End-User Group. 63 semi-structured interviews were conducted with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people who had accessed the government-funded clinical genetics service in Western Australia, Queensland or the Northern Territory between 2014 and 2018. The sample included patients, parents and carers. Participants were asked to recount their ‘patient journey’, from referral through to post-appointment and reflect on their perceptions of genetics and its implications for the health of themselves and their families. Analysis tracked chronological service engagement, followed by an inductive thematic approach. Results Barriers to access and engagement were present at each stage of the patient journey. These included challenges in obtaining a referral, long waiting periods, limited genetic literacy, absence of Aboriginal support services, communication challenges and lack of adequate psychosocial support and follow-up after attendance. Participants’ overall experiences of attending a genetic health service were varied, with positive perceptions tied closely to a diagnosis being achieved. The experience of (and expectation for) recognition of cultural identity and provision of culturally safe care was low among participants. Unaddressed concerns continued to cause significant distress in some people years after their appointment took place. Conclusions There is significant scope for improving the care provided to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at clinical genetics services. Immediate attention to minimising logistical barriers, developing relationships with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services and providing practical and specific cultural safety training for practitioners is required at the service-level. Our findings strongly support the development of guidelines or policies recognising the collective cultural needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to genomic health care.

“This is My Boy’s Health! Talk Straight to Me!” Perspectives on Accessible and Culturally Safe Care Among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Patients of Clinical Genetics Services

BackgroundAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not enjoy equal access to specialist health services that adequately meet their needs. Clinical genetics services are at the vanguard of realising the health benefits of genomic medicine. As the field continues to expand in clinical utility and implementation it is critical that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are able to participate and benefit equally to avoid further widening of the existing health gap. This is the first study to explore barriers to accessing clinical genetics services among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which has been acknowledged as a key strategic priority in Australian genomic health policy.MethodsA participatory design process engaged a majority-Aboriginal Project Reference Group and Aboriginal End-User Group. 63 semi-structured interviews were conducted with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people who had accessed the government-funded clinical genetics service in Western Australia, Queensland or the Northern Territory between 2014-2018. The sample included patients, parents and carers. Participants were asked to recount their ‘patient journey’, from referral through to post-appointment and reflect on their perceptions of genetics and its implications for the health of themselves and their families. Analysis tracked chronological service engagement, followed by an inductive thematic approach. ResultsBarriers to access and engagement were present at each stage of the patient journey. These included challenges in obtaining a referral, long waiting periods, limited genetic literacy, absence of Aboriginal support services, communication challenges and lack of adequate psychosocial support and follow-up after attendance. Participants’ overall experiences of attending a genetic health service were varied, with positive perceptions tied closely to a diagnosis being achieved. The experience of (and expectation for) recognition of cultural identity and provision of culturally safe care was low among participants. Unaddressed concerns continued to cause significant distress in some people years after their appointment took place.ConclusionsThere is significant scope for improving the care provided to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at clinical genetics services. Immediate attention to minimising logistical barriers, developing relationships with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services and providing practical and specific cultural safety training for practitioners is required at the service-level. Our findings strongly support the development of guidelines or policies recognising the collective cultural needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to genomic health care.

Impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing on Australian clinical genetics services

PurposeThe increasing popularity of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) is thought to be creating a burden on clinical genetic health services worldwide. However, no studies have collected recent evidence regarding the extent of this impact in Australia.MethodsWe administered an online survey to Australian clinical genetics services, asking questions related to DTCGT-related referrals received and outcomes over the past 10 years.ResultsEleven publicly-funded clinical genetics services completed the survey, reporting over 100 DTCGT-related referrals. Most referrals (83%) were made by general practitioners seeking interpretation of DTCGT results. More than 30% of referrals related to imputed genetic risk estimates generated from third-party web-based software tools. Services reported low validation rates for DTCGT results (<10%). Procedures for managing DTCGT referrals and granting appointments were variable between services, with most services (8/11) lacking specific procedures.ConclusionOur study helps quantify the impact of DTCGT on clinical genetics services, and highlights the impact of imputed genetic risk estimates generated from third-party software.