BRCA-DIRECT digital pathway for diagnostic germline genetic testing within a UK breast oncology setting: a randomised, non-inferiority trial

INTRODUCTION

Pathogenic variants (PVs) in genes such as BRCA1, BRCA2 and PALB2 (BRCA-genes) are associated with elevated risk of breast and other cancers (in particular, ovarian cancer), with well-evidenced interventions for early detection and prevention of disease (1–3). Historically, germline genetic testing for the BRCA-genes and other cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) was limited by requirement for laborious fragment-by-fragment gene analysis, consequent high costs and slow turnaround times, and was typically only initiated following referral to clinical genetics of families with a strong family history of relevant cancers. Next Generation Sequencing has transformed laboratory workflows, thus dramatically improving capacity and turnaround time. However, other elements of the clinical-laboratory pathway remain laborious, meaning complex eligibility criteria remain necessary to restrict the patient volume eligible for testing(4, 5).

Women identified at time of breast cancer (BC) diagnosis as carrying a high-risk PV in a BRCA-gene may elect to reduce their risk by having bilateral mastectomy instead of, or following on from, localised surgery(6). Furthermore, germline BRCA-gene status has emerged as an important therapeutic biomarker informing adjuvant BC therapy (7–9). For example, PARP-inhibitors have recently been approved in the UK by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) for HER2-negative advanced (Talazoparib) and early-stage (Olaparib) BC with germline BRCA PVs (10, 11). Consequently, BRCA-gene testing is increasingly offered to BC patients contemporaneous to diagnosis to inform treatment options.

Due to a lack of capacity in clinical genetics and the delay inherent in referral, there has been increasing momentum for delivery for diagnostic genetic testing in the ‘mainstream’ oncology setting(12). Implementation of this has however had variable success and acceptance owing to (i) perceived lack of expertise regarding genetic information-giving by the mainstream clinicians/surgeons themselves, (ii) lack of time in oncology appointments for detailed information-giving, counselling and consenting, (iii) perception of this role being outside the oncology remit, and (iv) navigation of complex eligibility criteria(13).

We hypothesised that most elements of the germline genetic testing process for BC patients were generic and amenable to a more standardised delivery process. We hypothesised that, if required, complex psychological, legal, clinical and/or risk-based information provision and counselling could be provided in a responsive patient-centred model, available throughout the testing process. Such a pathway could minimise the patient-facing time and administrative burden to oncology professionals for delivery of BRCA-testing. We therefore designed a digital pathway termed BRCA-DIRECT, comprising an online digital workflow portal including delivery of information about genetic testing (or ‘pre-test information’) and consent documentation, postal saliva sampling and a genetic counsellor hotline. We conducted the BRCA-DIRECT pathway study in unselected BC patients across breast oncology units in UK hospitals between 2021 and 2023. The study incorporated a randomised non-inferiority comparison of pre-test information delivery via the digital platform versus via a genetic counselling telephone consult.

METHODS

Patients

Recruitment

Patients were invited to participate in BRCA-DIRECT by clinical or research teams from five breast oncology units within two National Health Service (NHS) trusts in Manchester or London, UK.

A two-stage consent process was required to initiate genetic testing.

Firstly, the patient was provided with information about the BRCA-DIRECT study within clinic. Patients could ‘express interest’ in participating or provide a reason for decline. Those expressing an interest were given a study pack (including research consent form and a saliva sampling kit) to complete at home and return by post.

Secondly, after signing the study consent, participants were invited via email and/or SMS to create an account on the BRCA-DIRECT website, which gave them access to a personalised dashboard, providing an overview of the steps involved in the genetic testing (GT) pathway. The platform automatically notified and enabled completion of time-stamped tasks (see previously published description and figure 1)(14). This included a digital genetic test consent form, only available after receiving the pre-test information (see randomisation).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

The BRCA-DIRECT Pathway

A telephone genetic counselling hotline was available between 9am and 5pm, Monday-to-Friday, through which a genetic counsellor/genetic nurse (GC/GN) could provide support for clinical enquiries, as well as for administrative or technical help.

Participant Eligibility

The following criteria were applied:

• Inclusions:

  • o Diagnosis of invasive BC or high-grade ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS);

  • o Female;

  • o Over the age of 18 years old;

  • o Good comprehension of English language; and

  • o Access to internet with an email and/or telephone number (this could be via a trusted friend or family-member).

• Exclusion:

  • o Previous BRCA-gene testing.

Participant demographics

Participant demographics were collected via a digital survey at baseline. Information relating to BC type and status (newly diagnosed, in follow-up, or metastatic) was collected by local hospital teams at point of consent. Date of primary BC surgery, where available, was recorded prior to study closure.

RESULTS

Uptake of digital pathway study for genetic testing

During the recruitment period (05/07/2021 to 15/08/2022 (406 days)), 1,412 patients expressed interest and were provided with a study pack (see CONSORT figure 2). 1,140 of 1,412 (80.7%) patients returned their study consent and saliva sample in the post within the recruitment window, with 569 (49.9%) allocated to the fully-digital arm and 571 (50.1%) allocated to the partially-digital arm. Final follow-up of all participants was completed on 16/01/2023.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

CONSORT flow chart for recruitment to the BRCA-DIRECT study, including allocation to the fully digital arm (digital pre-test information) or the partially digital arm (genetic counsellor consultation).

Healthcare professional satisfaction

Responses were recorded from 37 healthcare professionals (16 Manchester and 21 London). 19/37 (51.4%) respondents were consultant breast oncologists or surgeons with other respondents comprising oncology clinical nurse specialists, research nurses, genetic counsellors, clinical geneticists, and trainee oncologist/surgeons.

On average, healthcare professionals expressed agreement (either 4 (agree to some extent) or 5 (strongly agree)) that all aspects of the pathway were equivalent, or superior, to current standard-of-care, with an overall median score (IQR) of 4.5 (4.3 to 5.0) factoring in all aspects of the pathway (figure 3). The lowest scores were recorded for consideration against current standard-of-care in regard of ‘patient compliance with the pathway’ (4.0 (3.0 to 5.0)) and ‘clinical monitoring of patient progress’ (4.0 (3.5 to 5.0)).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Healthcare professional reported agreement (1 strongly disagree, 5 – strongly agree), on whether aspects of the BRCA-DIRECT pathway were equivalent (or superior) in comparison to current standard-of-care.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the largest study reported to date of germline genetic testing using a digital pathway in cancer patients. We have demonstrated logistical feasibility and acceptability of a patient-centred, digital pathway for mainstreaming of BRCA-testing for unselected female BC patients. Via randomised comparison, we also showed non-inferiority against a range of outcomes of digital delivery of pre-test information compared with pre-test genetic counselling consultation.

We observed attrition upstream of participants (i) consenting to the research study and (ii) receiving the pre-test information (19.3% of those initially expressing interest, Figure 2). At both stages, attrition may have partly been a consequence of the demands of the research study through which the BRCA-testing was being delivered. For example, there was need for both research consent as well as standard genetic testing consent, which in some cases proved confusing to patients. Furthermore, being a research study placed additional time requirements on participants for completion of questionnaires. However, this attrition may also reflect barriers to inclusion within the study or progression through the pathway; there was limited opportunity for collection of data within this research study regarding non-participation.

The demographics of participating patients are broadly reflective of BC patients nationally, albeit slightly younger in average age of diagnosis (59 compared with 62 years old). However, there plausibly may be socio-demographic differences in characteristics between all patients presenting in clinic for BC management during the study window and those taking up BRCA-testing. These may reflect biases relating to those offered the study, those expressing interest following offer, and those progressing digitally to the point of test uptake (genetic test consent). Such factors are relevant to the generalisability of the findings; similar factors may well pertain to uptake of BRCA-testing through existing standard pathways and warrant further exploration to improve equity of access to BRCA-testing more generally. However, these biases should not be differential between the two arms of the study, and as such, for those who do opt for testing via a digital pathway, the observation of superior test uptake in the fully-digital arm is of note.

Indeed across all outcomes, our randomised comparison demonstrated non-inferiority of digital delivery of pre-test information compared with a pre-test genetic counselling consultation. Though it is important to consider that our comparator arm was a “partially-digital” pathway, limited to comparison of just the pre-test information, rather than a true standard-of-care arm for BRCA-testing. Nonetheless, our findings relating to equivalence of patient-reported anxiety and satisfaction were promising. Additionally, the relatively low demand for clinical support via the genetic counselling hotline similarly indicate low proportions with substantial anxiety or need for extra support throughout the process.

The genetic counselling hotline was intended to provide optional access to a GN/GC to supplement digital pre-test information. Thus, patient contact with a GN/GC is not necessitated within the proposed pathway but rather allows patient-centred access to support if required. This differs from previous studies in cancer patients, which have largely focussed on implementing digital information or tools in addition (or prior) to genetic counselling (18, 19).

Two exceptions to this, with similar findings, are a US study, reported by Swisher et al., that reported noninferiority of patient distress at three months and no statistically significant differences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret between participants who did not have mandatory pre-test counselling (received information in the format of a video) compared to those who had pre-test genetic counselling (20). This study was outside of mainstream settings, for participants recruited from the public with a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer.

Another study reported by Sie et al. (2013), gave 161 selected BC patients referred to clinical genetics services within the Netherlands the option to proceed with testing via a fully digital route, as alternative to conventional consultation (there was no genetic counselling hotline in this study). Sai et al. also reported high uptake in the digital pathway, that more patients preferred testing without prior face-to-face counselling, and similar outcomes in relation to distress (anxiety) and satisfaction between the digital arm and conventional clinical genetics consultation arm (21).

Within our study, we also compared knowledge between the two arms and our findings reveal that, whilst lower, mean patient knowledge scores in the fully-digital arm lay within the pre-set margin of non-inferiority. Therefore, the standardised material we produced with our patient involvement group can be deemed suitable and sufficient for providing pre-test information generating acceptable knowledge levels, as compared to a GC/GN consult. However, a priority area for future exploration is improving inclusivity and accessibility of digital materials to meet diverse patient needs and to ensure that we are not exacerbating health inequalities. For example, for different learning styles, reading levels, or languages, and accessible content for those with hearing or sight loss, which could be achieved via more interactive tools, use of audio-visual content, or physical paper-based information as an adjunct.

Previous studies of digital pathways have largely focused on community-based ascertainment for genetic testing, for example BRCA founder mutation testing for those with Jewish ancestry. Our study is the first focussed on using a digital pathway for patients under active oncology management within UK NHS. At both sites involved in the study, HCP satisfaction with the pathway was overall high, with expression of readiness for broader rollout with number of benefits identified in previous survey. Our clinician satisfaction data may reflect bias regarding those clinicians electing to participate in the survey; furthermore, the two trusts involved in the study had already established mainstreamed pathways for BC GT and thus their clinician population may not be reflective nationally. Improvements in HCP feedback relating to turnaround times were observed compared to the pilot study, likely through improvements in laboratory test turnaround times (which improved over the study period following COVID19-related laboratory delays and optimisation of copy number variant analysis for saliva-derived DNA).

In terms of the patient population, we offered GT to all women attending for BC diagnosis, management, or follow-up. Under current UK guidelines, fewer than 20% of women with BC are currently eligible for BRCA-testing (22). UK health economic analysis undertaken in 2018 suggest universal testing of BC patients to be economically impactful within NICE willingness to pay thresholds of £30,000/QALY up to a per-patient cost of £1,626 (payer perspective) and £1,868 (societal perspective) (23). Of note, recent guidance from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has recommended testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 in all BC cases up to the age of 65, including those diagnosed historically(24). However, detection of PVs will be higher in cases with younger onset, higher-grade, bilateral and/or hormone-receptor negative disease, and where a relevant family history is present (22). There is an inherent tension in balancing enhancement of detection rate against the complexity and imperfect sensitivity incurred from test eligibility criteria.

Nevertheless, any substantial expansion in BRCA-testing of BC cases, for example testing of all cases arising age ≤65 years, would require higher-throughput clinical and laboratory systems. We propose that such systems should (i) incorporate more generic patient information materials and clinical workflows to enable scale, (ii) retain availability where required of expert clinical input individualised to patient requirements and (iii) attune flexibly to local clinical pathways and informatic workflows, especially as GT timed at point of diagnosis requires efficient timely delivery. Additional work is required to understand necessary facilitators and adaptations to optimise equity of access; pathway-specific health economic analyses will also be important.

Overall, this study demonstrates that, supported by a genetic counselling hotline, a fully-digital pathway may be a suitable alternative to conventional models of pre-test information-giving, sampling and consenting, and could support end-to-end management of genetic testing for a large proportion of BC patients. Where expansion of germline genetic testing is limited by clinical capacity, pathways such as BRCA-DIRECT, implemented within mainstream oncology clinics may offer a viable and acceptable approach for the majority of patients to minimise the patient-facing and administrative burdens to clinicians of BRCA-testing, whilst providing flexible patient access to clinical genetics expertise. Thus enabling both clinical genetics and oncology professional time to be utilised more effectively for management of those with a positive result or supporting a minority of patients for whom a standardised, digital approach is unsuitable.

ETHICS

This study was approved for sponsorship by The Institute of Cancer Research/Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust Joint Committee for Clinical Research. The study received favourable opinion from the London—Chelsea Research Ethics Committee (REC) on 4 January 2021 (REC reference: 20/LO/1200) and full Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) approval on 4 January 2021. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

FUNDING

This study was funded by Cancer Research UK [C61296/A29423]. This study represents independent research supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Cancer Research, London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. DGE is supported by the Manchester National Institute for Health and Social Care Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (IS-BRC-1215-20007).

DECLARATION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

ZK declares honoraria for educational resources and advisory board, AstraZeneca. No further conflicts of interest are reported by the authors.