Presutti, Richard J

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an autosomal dominant genetic disorder that increases risk for premature coronary artery disease and has accessible and effective interventions. The Dutch lipid clinic network is currently the most used diagnostic criterion; however, genetic sequencing provides a definitive diagnosis of FH. The goals of this study were to determine whether germline genetic screening using exome sequencing could be used to efficiently identify individuals who were genotype positive for FH. METHODS: Participants were recruited from 3 geographically and racially diverse sites in the United States (Rochester, MN; Phoenix, AZ; and Jacksonville, FL). Participants underwent Exome+ sequencing (dba Helix, San Mateo, CA) and return of results for specific genetic findings in APOB , LDLR , or PCSK9 . A chart review was performed to collect demographics, personal, and family cardiovascular history. RESULTS: At the time of the study, 84 413 participants were enrolled in the Tapestry study. Annotation and interpretation of all variants in genes for FH resulted in the identification of 419 likely pathogenic and pathogenic variants (prevalence, 0.50%), which included 116 APOB , 298 LDLR , and 5 PCSK9 . Sixty-six percent were female, the mean body mass index was 27.3, with 12.3% reporting a history of diabetes. Hypertriglyceridemia (≥150 mg/dL) was present in 39.5% and reduced HDL (<50 mg/dL) was present in 56.7% of patients. 27.5% of patients were not on cholesterol-lowering medications, and only 10% of FH carriers were at goal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. A history of coronary artery disease was reported in 22.4% of the cohort. Nearly 90% of these participants were newly diagnosed carriers of FH. Only 30.8% of confirmed genetic diagnoses of FH satisfied clinical (Dutch lipid clinic network) criteria for a diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results emphasize the need for wider utilization of germline genetic sequencing for enhanced screening and detection of individuals who have familial hypercholesterolemia. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT05212428.

Objective: Multicancer Detection (MCD) tests, such as the GRAIL Galleri, offer a novel approach to cancer screening by detecting cancer-specific methylation patterns in cell-free DNA through a single blood sample. This study evaluated an 18-month implementation of MCD testing in a tertiary ambulatory internal medicine clinic. Patients and Methods: Between June 2022 and November 2023, 2244 asymptomatic (without symptoms attributed to cancer) patients underwent MCD testing. The study focused on operational workflows, patient and physician education, and diagnostic follow-up of positive results. Standardized materials, including electronic health record (EHR) workflows, FAQs, and diagnostic pathways, were developed to facilitate implementation. Challenges included managing false positives, patient anxiety, costs, and ethical considerations. Results: Of the 2244 patients tested, 17 (0.76%) had positive results, and 15 underwent further diagnostic evaluation. Cancer was confirmed in 11 (73.3%) patients, including cases of breast, colon, esophageal, lymphoma, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers. Four patients had no identifiable malignancy despite comprehensive work-up. Conclusions: MCD testing is feasible in routine clinical workflows, with 73% of positive cases yielding cancer diagnoses. While promising, further research is required to assess long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and optimal implementation strategies of cancer interception in broader healthcare settings.

The optimal patient panel size (PPS) in primary care and the factors determining it remain unclear. We conducted a meta-narrative review of the literature to evaluate factors influencing PPS and assess its association with patient outcomes. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was performed from inception through December 2023, focusing on original studies reporting factors used to determine PPS and related outcomes (eg, clinical outcomes, process measures, and resource utilization). A total of 48 studies were included, identifying 7 key factors influencing PPS. Smaller panels were associated with improved patient satisfaction, continuity of care, and health promotion, while clinical outcomes, utilization, and costs showed minimal impact by PPS. Panel size was primarily associated with patient age, sex, comorbidities, and practice type and structure. Community-based centers typically managed smaller panels, often staffed by female clinicians and serving socioeconomically disadvantaged populations with greater health needs than hospital-based practices. Female clinicians were also independently associated with managing smaller panels, higher quality care indicators, fewer emergency department visits, and improved patient satisfaction. Determining the ideal PPS is a multifaceted process influenced by practice setting, patient demographics, and clinician characteristics. While practice-related factors showed limited association with PPS, patient-reported outcomes were more closely linked to it. Primary care practices should tailor panel sizes to their patient populations, emphasizing a patient-centered approach and ensuring adequate infrastructure support to optimize care delivery.

PURPOSE The autosomal dominant cancer predisposition disorders hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome (LS) are genetic conditions for which early identification and intervention have a positive effect on the individual and public health. The goals of this study were to determine whether germline genetic screening using exome sequencing could be used to efficiently identify carriers of HBOC and LS. METHODS Participants were recruited from three geographically and racially diverse sites in the United States (Rochester, MN; Phoenix, AZ; Jacksonville, FL). Participants underwent Exome+ sequencing (Helix Inc, San Mateo, CA) and return of results for specific genetic findings: HBOC ( BRCA1 and BRCA1) and LS ( MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM). Chart review was performed to collect demographics and personal and family cancer history. RESULTS To date, 44,306 participants have enrolled in Tapestry. Annotation and interpretation of all variants in genes for HBOC and LS resulted in the identification of 550 carriers (prevalence, 1.24%), which included 387 with HBOC (27.2% BRCA1, 42.8% BRCA2) and 163 with LS (12.3% MSH6, 8.8% PMS2, 4.5% MLH1, 3.8% MSH2, and 0.2% EPCAM). More than half of these participants (52.1%) were newly diagnosed carriers with HBOC and LS. In all, 39.2% of HBOC/LS carriers did not satisfy National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic evaluation. NCCN criteria were less commonly met in underrepresented minority populations versus self-reported White race (51.5% v 37.5%, P = .028). CONCLUSION Our results emphasize the need for wider utilization of germline genetic sequencing for enhanced screening and detection of individuals who have LS and HBOC cancer predisposition syndromes.

PURPOSE Guidelines recommend germline genetic testing (GT) for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aims to evaluate the utilization and outcomes of multigene panel GT in patients with PDAC. METHODS This retrospective, multisite study included patients with PDAC diagnosed between May 2018 and August 2020 at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. Discussion, uptake, and outcomes of GT were compared before (May 1, 2018-May 1, 2019) and after (August 1, 2019-August 1, 2020) the guideline update, accounting for a transition period. RESULTS The study identified 533 patients with PDAC, with 321 (60.2%) preguideline and 212 (39.8%) postguideline. Patient characteristics did not differ between the preguideline and postguideline periods. GT was discussed in 34.3% (110 of 321) of preguideline and 39.6% (84 of 212) of postguideline patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.80]) and subsequently performed in 80.9% (89 of 110) of preguideline and 75.0% (63 of 84) of postguideline patients (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.61]). Of 152 tested patients, 26 (17.1%) had a pathogenic variant (PV), of whom 17 (11.2%; 17 of 152) were PDAC-associated. Over the entire study period, GT was more likely in younger patients (65 v 70 years; P < .001), those seen by a medical oncologist (82.9% v 69.0%; P < .001), and those surviving more than 12 months from diagnosis (70.4% v 43.4%; P < .001). Demographics and personal/family cancer history were comparable between patients with and without a PDAC PV. CONCLUSION GT remains underutilized despite National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. Given the poor prognosis of PDAC and potential implications of GT, efforts to increase utilization are needed to provide surveillance and support to both patients with PDAC and at-risk family members.

AbstractPrimary care physicians (PCPs) are commonly approached with concerns involving patient genetics. This is a challenge because most PCPs lack expertise in genetic testing compared to their genetic counselor counterparts. Currently, the recommended best practice is to refer patients for genetic testing based on cancer‐related family history questionnaires with a genetic counseling referral to discuss their results and any implications. However, the extent to which PCPs are using these questionnaires for this purpose remains poorly understood. In this cross‐sectional study, PCPs were presented with the American Cancer Society's seven recommended family history questions to determine the percentage who consider each to be an indicator for referral to a genetics specialist. Questionnaires were completed by 88 of 260 attending PCPs at a national primary care review conference. The main outcome was the percentage of PCPs who identified each question as a trigger for genetic testing. Secondary outcomes included correlations with years of practice, genetics training, and methods used to obtain patient family history. Only two of the seven questions were considered triggers by most PCPs (range, 76–83%). The remaining five had lower percentages (range, 22–55%). Years of practice did not influence the number of triggers identified (Spearman correlation coefficient test: r = 0.05, p = 0.68). Few PCPs (3.4%) felt they had good to excellent genetics training during residency. Only 44.3% had genetics specialists available for referral. Overall, low percentages of PCPs consider the American Cancer Society questions to be triggers for genetic testing referrals. Furthermore, many do not have a genetics specialist or counselor available for referral. Addressing these concerns may help PCPs understand the basics of genetic testing and use standardized questionnaires to make appropriate referrals to genetic specialists, thereby reducing inappropriate referrals and improving appointment access to this precious resource for those who truly need it.

Abstract Background In the United States, rare disease (RD) is defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals. Collectively, RD affects an estimated 30 million Americans. A significant portion of RD has an underlying genetic cause; however, this may go undiagnosed. To better serve these patients, the Mayo Clinic Program for Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases (PRaUD) was created under the auspices of the Center for Individualized Medicine (CIM) aiming to integrate genomics into subspecialty practice including targeted genetic testing, research, and education. Methods Patients were identified by subspecialty healthcare providers from 11 clinical divisions/departments. Targeted multi-gene panels or custom exome/genome-based panels were utilized. To support the goals of PRaUD, a new clinical service model, the Genetic Testing and Counseling (GTAC) unit, was established to improve access and increase efficiency for genetic test facilitation. The GTAC unit includes genetic counselors, genetic counseling assistants, genetic nurses, and a medical geneticist. Patients receive abbreviated point-of-care genetic counseling and testing through a partnership with subspecialty providers. Results Implementation of PRaUD began in 2018 and GTAC unit launched in 2020 to support program expansion. Currently, 29 RD clinical indications are included in 11 specialty divisions/departments with over 142 referring providers. To date, 1,152 patients have been evaluated with an overall solve rate of 14.1% and as high as 66.7% depending on the phenotype. Noteworthy, 42.7% of the solved or likely solved patients underwent changes in medical management and outcome based on genetic test results. Conclusion Implementation of PRaUD and GTAC have enabled subspecialty practices advance expertise in RD where genetic counselors have not historically been embedded in practice. Democratizing access to genetic testing and counseling can broaden the reach of patients with RD and increase the diagnostic yield of such indications leading to better medical management as well as expanding research opportunities.

Introduction: Primary care clinicians are presented with hundreds of new clinical recommendations and guidelines. To consider practice change clinicians must identify relevant information and develop a contextual framework. Too much attention to information irrelevant to one’s practice results in wasted resources. Too little results in care gaps. A small group of primary care clinicians in a large health system sought to address the problem of vetting new information and providing peer reviewed context. This was done by engaging colleagues across the system though a primary care learning collaborative. Methods: The collaborative was a grass roots initiative between community and academic-based clinicians. They invited all the system’s primary care clinicians to participate. They selected new recommendations or guidelines and used surveys as the principal communication instrument. Surveys shared practice experience and also invited members to give narrative feedback regarding their acceptance of variation in care relate to the topic. A description of the collaborative along with its development, processes, and evolution are discussed. Process changes to address needs during the COVID-19 pandemic including expanded information sharing was necessary. Results: Collaborative membership reached across 5 states and included family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. Members found involvement with the collaborative useful. Less variation in care was thought important for public health crises: the COVID pandemic and opioid epidemic. Greater practice variation was thought acceptable for adherence to multispecialty guidelines, such as diabetes, lipid management, and adult ADHD care. Process changes during the pandemic resulted in more communications between members to avoid practice gaps. Conclusion: An internet-based learning collaborative in a health system had good engagement from its members. Using novel methods, it was able to provide members with feedback related to the importance of new practice recommendations as perceived by their peers. Greater standardization was thought necessary when adopting measures to address public health crisis, and less necessary when addressing multispecialty guidelines. By employing a learning collaborative, this group was able to keep members interested and engaged. During the first year of the COVID pandemic the collaborative also served as a vehicle to share timely information.

Introduction: Family health history can be a valuable indicator of risk to develop certain cancers. Unfortunately, patient self-reported family history often contains inaccuracies, which might change recommendations for cancer screening. We endeavored to understand the difference between a patient’s self-reported family history and their electronic medical record (EMR) family history. One aim of this study was to determine if family history information contained in the EMR differs from patient-reported family history collected using a focused questionnaire. Methods: We created the Hereditary Cancer Questionnaire (HCQ) based on current guidelines and distributed to 314 patients in the Department of Family Medicine waiting room June 20 to August 1, 2018. The survey queried patients about specific cancers within their biological family to assess their risk of an inherited cancer syndrome. We used the questionnaire responses as a baseline when comparing family histories in the medical record. Results: Agreement between the EMR and the questionnaire data decreased as the patients’ risk for familial cancer increased. Meaning that the more significant a patient’s family cancer history, the less likely it was to be recorded accurately and consistently in the EMR. Patients with low-risk levels, or fewer instances of cancer in the family, had more consistencies between the EMR and the questionnaire. Conclusions: Given that physicians often make recommendations on incomplete information that is in the EMR, patients might not receive individualized preventive care based on a more complete family cancer history. This is especially true for individuals with more complicated and significant family history of cancer. An improved method of collecting family history, including increasing patient engagement, may help to decrease this disparity.

Context: Athletes are a unique group of patients whose activities, particularly in high-contact sports such as wrestling and football, place them at high risk of developing skin conditions. The correct diagnosis of sports dermatoses requires familiarity with their clinical characteristics. It is critical that primary care physicians recognize the most common skin disorders to provide prompt treatment and prevent transmission. Evidence Acquisition: The Mayo Clinic library obtained articles from 2012 onward related to dermatologic conditions in athletes. Study Design: Review article. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Results: Dermatologic diseases in athletes are often infectious and contagious due to close-contact sports environments. Sports-related dermatoses include bacterial infections, such as impetigo, ecthyma, folliculitis, abscesses, furuncles, carbuncles, erysipelas, and cellulitis; fungal infections, such as tinea and intertrigo; viral infections, such as herpes, verrucae, and molluscum contagiosum; and noninfectious conditions, such as acne, blisters, and contact dermatitis. Conclusion: This article aims to address the manifestations of the most common cutaneous diseases in athletes on the first primary care visit. It discusses the appropriate tests and most recent evidence-based treatments for each ailment. It also addresses return-to-play recommendations related to the guidelines and regulations of selected sports organizations in the United States. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): C.