Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Familial Cancer 1/2019

01-01-2019 | Original Article

Physician interpretation of variants of uncertain significance

Authors: Sarah K. Macklin, Jessica L. Jackson, Paldeep S. Atwal, Stephanie L. Hines

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

A growing number of physicians will interact with genetic test results as testing becomes more commonplace. While variants of uncertain significance can complicate results, it is equally important that physicians understand how to incorporate these results into clinical care. An online survey was created to assess physician self-reported comfort level with genetics and variants of uncertain significance. Physicians were asked to respond to three case examples involving genetic test results. The survey was sent to 488 physicians at Mayo Clinic FL on 8/16/2017. Physicians from all specialties were invited to participate. A total of 92 physicians responded to the survey. Only 13/84 (14.6%) responded to all three case examples with the answer deemed “most correct” by review of literature. Physicians that specialized in cancer were more likely to answer questions appropriately (P = .02). Around half (39/84) of the physicians incorrectly defined a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). Over 75% made a recommendation for genetic testing that was not warranted. Many physicians have never received formal genetics training; however, they will be expected to provide an accurate explanation of the genetic test results and subsequent evidence-based medical management recommendations. These results demonstrate that a substantial proportion of physicians lack a true understanding of the implications a VUS. Utilization of supplemental genetics training programs coupled with increase awareness of genetic services may help to improve patient care.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Moreno L (2016) Germline BRCA testing is moving from cancer risk assessment to a predictive biomarker for targeting cancer therapeutics. Clin Transl Oncol 18:981–987CrossRefPubMed Moreno L (2016) Germline BRCA testing is moving from cancer risk assessment to a predictive biomarker for targeting cancer therapeutics. Clin Transl Oncol 18:981–987CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Hudson KL, Murphy JA, Kaufman DJ, Javitt GH, Katsanis SH, Scott J (2006) Oversight of US genetic testing laboratories. Nat Biotechnol 24:1083–1090CrossRefPubMed Hudson KL, Murphy JA, Kaufman DJ, Javitt GH, Katsanis SH, Scott J (2006) Oversight of US genetic testing laboratories. Nat Biotechnol 24:1083–1090CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Keating NL, Stoeckert KA, Regan MM, DiGianni L, Garber JE (2008) Physicians’ experiences with BRCA1/2 testing in community settings. J Clin Oncol 26:5789–5796CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Keating NL, Stoeckert KA, Regan MM, DiGianni L, Garber JE (2008) Physicians’ experiences with BRCA1/2 testing in community settings. J Clin Oncol 26:5789–5796CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Shields AE, Burke W, Levy DE (2008) Differential use of available genetic tests among primary care physicians in the U.S.: results of a national survey. Genet Med 10:404–414CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shields AE, Burke W, Levy DE (2008) Differential use of available genetic tests among primary care physicians in the U.S.: results of a national survey. Genet Med 10:404–414CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S et al (2015) Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 17:405–424CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S et al (2015) Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 17:405–424CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Tung N, Lin NU, Kidd J et al (2016) Frequency of germline mutations in 25 cancer susceptibility genes in a sequential series of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 34:1460–1468CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tung N, Lin NU, Kidd J et al (2016) Frequency of germline mutations in 25 cancer susceptibility genes in a sequential series of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 34:1460–1468CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Eccles DM, Mitchell G, Monteiro AN et al (2015) BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing-pitfalls and recommendations for managing variants of uncertain clinical significance. Ann Oncol 26:2057–2065CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Eccles DM, Mitchell G, Monteiro AN et al (2015) BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing-pitfalls and recommendations for managing variants of uncertain clinical significance. Ann Oncol 26:2057–2065CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Hall MJ, Reid JE, Burbidge LA et al (2009) BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women of different ethnicities undergoing testing for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. Cancer 115:2222–2233CrossRefPubMed Hall MJ, Reid JE, Burbidge LA et al (2009) BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women of different ethnicities undergoing testing for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. Cancer 115:2222–2233CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Garcia C (2014) Comparison of risk management strategies between women testing positive for a BRCA variant of unknown significance and women with known BRCA deleterious mutations. Genet Med 16:896–902CrossRefPubMed Garcia C (2014) Comparison of risk management strategies between women testing positive for a BRCA variant of unknown significance and women with known BRCA deleterious mutations. Genet Med 16:896–902CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Culver JO (2013) Variants of uncertain significance in BRCA testing: evaluation of surgical decisions, risk perception, and cancer distress. Clin Genet 84:464–472CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Culver JO (2013) Variants of uncertain significance in BRCA testing: evaluation of surgical decisions, risk perception, and cancer distress. Clin Genet 84:464–472CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Kurian AW, Li Y, Hamilton AS et al (2017) Gaps in incorporating germline genetic testing into treatment decision-making for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 35:2232–2239CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kurian AW, Li Y, Hamilton AS et al (2017) Gaps in incorporating germline genetic testing into treatment decision-making for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 35:2232–2239CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Vos J, Otten W, van Asperen C, Jansen A, Menko F, Tibben A (2008) The counsellees’ view of an unclassified variant in BRCA1/2: recall, interpretation, and impact on life. Psycho-Oncology 17:822–830CrossRefPubMed Vos J, Otten W, van Asperen C, Jansen A, Menko F, Tibben A (2008) The counsellees’ view of an unclassified variant in BRCA1/2: recall, interpretation, and impact on life. Psycho-Oncology 17:822–830CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Eccles BK, Copson E, Maishman T, Abraham JE, Eccles DM (2015) Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic test results by breast cancer specialists. BMC Cancer 15:936CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Eccles BK, Copson E, Maishman T, Abraham JE, Eccles DM (2015) Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic test results by breast cancer specialists. BMC Cancer 15:936CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Richer S, Haroun I, Graham TC, Eisen A, Kiss A, Warner E (2013) Variants of unknown significance in BRCA testing: impact on risk perception, worry, prevention and counseling. Ann Oncol 24:viii69–viii74 Richer S, Haroun I, Graham TC, Eisen A, Kiss A, Warner E (2013) Variants of unknown significance in BRCA testing: impact on risk perception, worry, prevention and counseling. Ann Oncol 24:viii69–viii74
16.
go back to reference Greenblatt MS (2015) Sequence variants of uncertain significance: what to do when genetic test results are not definitive. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 24:833–846CrossRefPubMed Greenblatt MS (2015) Sequence variants of uncertain significance: what to do when genetic test results are not definitive. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 24:833–846CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Syngal S, Brand RE, Church JM, Giarddiello FM, Hampel HL, Burt RW (2015) ACG clinical guideline: genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol 110:223–263CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Syngal S, Brand RE, Church JM, Giarddiello FM, Hampel HL, Burt RW (2015) ACG clinical guideline: genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol 110:223–263CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Brierly KL (2010) Errors in delivery of cancer genetics services: implications for practice. Conn Med 74:413–423 Brierly KL (2010) Errors in delivery of cancer genetics services: implications for practice. Conn Med 74:413–423
19.
go back to reference Pruss D, Morris B, Hughes E et al (2014) Development and validation a new algorithm for the reclassification of genetic variants identified in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Breast Cancer Res Treat 47:119–132CrossRef Pruss D, Morris B, Hughes E et al (2014) Development and validation a new algorithm for the reclassification of genetic variants identified in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Breast Cancer Res Treat 47:119–132CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Woodward ER, Sleightholme HV, Considine AM, Williamson S, McHugo JM, Cruger DG (2007) Annual surveillance by CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound for ovarian cancer in both high-risk and population risk women is ineffective. BJOG 114:1500–1509CrossRefPubMed Woodward ER, Sleightholme HV, Considine AM, Williamson S, McHugo JM, Cruger DG (2007) Annual surveillance by CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound for ovarian cancer in both high-risk and population risk women is ineffective. BJOG 114:1500–1509CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K et al (2013) Systematic review of the psychological consquences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess 17:v–viCrossRef Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K et al (2013) Systematic review of the psychological consquences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess 17:v–viCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Kruger J, Dunning D (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol 77:1121–1134CrossRefPubMed Kruger J, Dunning D (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol 77:1121–1134CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Mehdizadeh L, Sturrock A, Myers G, Khatib Y, Dacre J (2014) How well do doctors think they perform on the General Medical Council’s Tests of Competence pilot examinations? A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 4:e004131CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mehdizadeh L, Sturrock A, Myers G, Khatib Y, Dacre J (2014) How well do doctors think they perform on the General Medical Council’s Tests of Competence pilot examinations? A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 4:e004131CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Riley BD, Culver JO, Skrzynia C et al (2012) Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 21:151–161CrossRefPubMed Riley BD, Culver JO, Skrzynia C et al (2012) Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 21:151–161CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Solomon I, Harrington E, Hooker G et al (2017) Lynch syndrome limbo: patient understanding of variants of uncertain significance. J Genet Couns 26:866–877CrossRefPubMed Solomon I, Harrington E, Hooker G et al (2017) Lynch syndrome limbo: patient understanding of variants of uncertain significance. J Genet Couns 26:866–877CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Najafzadeh M, Lynd LD, Davis JC et al (2012) Barriers to integrating personalized medicine into clinical practice: a best-worst scaling choice experiment. Genet Med 14:520–526CrossRefPubMed Najafzadeh M, Lynd LD, Davis JC et al (2012) Barriers to integrating personalized medicine into clinical practice: a best-worst scaling choice experiment. Genet Med 14:520–526CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Talwar D, Tseng TS, Foster M, Xu L, Chen LS (2017) Genetics/genomics education for nongenetic health professionals: a systematic literature review. Genet Med 19:725–732CrossRefPubMed Talwar D, Tseng TS, Foster M, Xu L, Chen LS (2017) Genetics/genomics education for nongenetic health professionals: a systematic literature review. Genet Med 19:725–732CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Delikurt T, Williamson GR, Anastasiadou V, Skirton H (2015) A systematic review of factors that act as barriers to patient referral to genetic services. Eur J Hum Genet 23:739–745CrossRefPubMed Delikurt T, Williamson GR, Anastasiadou V, Skirton H (2015) A systematic review of factors that act as barriers to patient referral to genetic services. Eur J Hum Genet 23:739–745CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Haidle JL (2015) 2015 NSGC presidential address: gifts of genetic counselors: life’s leadership lessons. J Genet Couns 24:1–5CrossRef Haidle JL (2015) 2015 NSGC presidential address: gifts of genetic counselors: life’s leadership lessons. J Genet Couns 24:1–5CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Vrecar I, Hristovski D, Peterlin B (2017) Telegenetics: an update on availability and use of telemedicine in clinical genetics service. J Med Syst 14:21CrossRef Vrecar I, Hristovski D, Peterlin B (2017) Telegenetics: an update on availability and use of telemedicine in clinical genetics service. J Med Syst 14:21CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Physician interpretation of variants of uncertain significance
Authors
Sarah K. Macklin
Jessica L. Jackson
Paldeep S. Atwal
Stephanie L. Hines
Publication date
01-01-2019
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-018-0086-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Familial Cancer 1/2019 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine