Retrospective genetic testing (Traceback) in women with early-onset breast cancer after revised national guidelines:
Annelie Augustinsson1,2,3, Niklas Loman4,5, Hans Ehrencrona6,7
1Care in High Technological Environments, Department of Health Sciences, Lund University, 221 00, Lund, Sweden. annelie.augustinsson@med.lu.se.
Purpose:
This study focused on identifying a hereditary predisposition in women previously diagnosed with early-onset breast cancer through a retrospective outreach activity (Traceback). The objectives were to evaluate the possible clinical implementation of a simplified Traceback strategy and to identify carriers of pathogenic variants among previously untested women.
Methods:
Three hundred and fifteen Traceback-eligible women diagnosed with breast cancer at 36-40 years in Southern Sweden between 2000 and 2019 were identified and offered an analysis of the genes ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D through a standardized letter. Women who chose to participate were asked about their experiences through a questionnaire. The workload for the study personnel was measured and recorded.
Results:
One hundred and seventy-six women underwent genetic testing and pathogenic variants were identified in 9.7%: ATM (n = 6), BARD1 (n = 1), BRCA1 (n = 3), CHEK2 (n = 5), and PALB2 (n = 2). Women with normal test results were informed through a standardized letter. Carriers of pathogenic variants were contacted by telephone and offered in-person genetic counseling. One hundred and thirty-four women returned the subsequent questionnaire. Most study participants were satisfied with both written pre- and post-test information and many expressed their gratitude. The extra workload as compared to routine clinical genetic counseling was modest (8 min per patient).
Conclusion:
The insights from the participants' perspectives and sentiments throughout the process support the notion that the Traceback procedure is a safe and an appreciated complement to routine genetic counseling. The genetic yield of almost 10% also suggests that the associated extra workload for genetic counselors could be viewed as acceptable in clinical implementation scenarios.
