Abstract:INTRODUCTION: While multigene hereditary cancer testing has become a common order for individuals with personal and/or family histories of cancer, targeted genetic testing (TGT) remains a cost-effective test option for cascade testing of individuals with a known gene mutation in the family. In order to proceed with TGT, the genetic testing laboratory must receive documentation of the specific variant. Intervention of a genetic counseling team (GCT), which includes laboratory genetic counselors and genetic counseling assistants, can play a major role in utilization management for genetic testing companies, including obtaining and reviewing mutation reports and offering clinically appropriate and cost-effective test options. Given previously reported low rates of cascade testing for family members of mutation carriers and the potential barriers of ordering TGT testing, we sought to review the success of providers ordering BRCA1 and BRCA2 TGT testing and the GCT role in management of these orders. METHODS: Per standard operating procedure at Labcorp, the GCT reviews all hereditary cancer genetic test orders before they begin processing through prior authorization and laboratory analysis. When societal guidelines dictate, GCT intervention may occur to request genetic testing reports and offer to update testing appropriately. A retrospective review of GCT notes on TGT orders was conducted, with review of all BRCA1 and BRCA2 TGT orders accessioned between January 1 and February 28, 2023. Orders that were updated or cancelled before GCT review were excluded from analysis. All other TGT orders were coded into one of seven categories: (1) ordered for TGT, mutation report provided, proceed without GCT intervention; (2) ordered for TGT, mutation report obtained after GCT intervention, proceed with TGT; (3) ordered for TGT, no report obtained, updated to BRCA1 and BRCA2 comprehensive sequencing and deletion/duplication analysis with or without other hereditary cancer genes (COMP) with authorization from ordering provider via GCT intervention; (4) ordered for TGT, report obtained, updated to COMP via GCT intervention; (5) ordered for TGT, no report or authorization to update testing obtained during GCT intervention, testing cancelled; (6) ordered for TGT and COMP, no report, TGT cancelled; and (7) ordered for COMP, mutation report obtained, updated to TGT with authorization from ordering provider after GCT intervention. Time between accessioning and initial GCT resolution was also collected. RESULTS: A total of 198 TGT orders and associated GCT notes were reviewed. 24 orders (12.1%) proceeded with TGT without GCT intervention (category 1) with an average turn-around-time of 1 day. GCT intervention was required for 158 (79.8%) of TGT orders with an average turn-around-time of 5 days. After GCT review and/or intervention, 60 (30.3%) orders proceeded with TGT analysis (categories 1, 2, and 7); 23 (11.6%) of these were originally ordered for COMP, then updated when a mutation report was obtained (category 7). Testing was updated from TGT to COMP because no mutation report was obtained in 78 (39.3%) cases (category 3). In 7 (3.5%) TGT orders, testing was updated to COMP even though a mutation report was obtained (category 4). CONCLUSION: TGT analysis is beneficial for cascade testing, but access to a mutation report as a requirement to proceed can be a barrier. More strategies are needed to provide education for ordering providers and patients on the benefit of sharing familial mutation reports for cascade testing. Efficiency of testing increases when patients and providers have access to records and provide this information to laboratories up-front. Laboratory GCTs are invaluable resources in reviewing nuanced genetic test orders, educating providers in the strengths and limitations of different genetic test options, and working to ensure patients receive clinically appropriate and cost-effective testing. Citation Format: Rebecca Vanderwall, Dagny Noeth, Angelica Goulbourne, Katherine Goode, Teresa Ruegg, Melissa Hayden, W. Christine Spence. Utilization Management: The Impact of Laboratory Genetic Counseling Oversight on BRCA1 and BRCA2 Targeted Analysis Orders [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl) nr PO1-08-07.

Abstract PO1-08-04: Universal Germline Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer: Implementation in a Rural Practice and Impact on Shared Decision Making

Abstract A020: Impact of universal germline testing on pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant frequency among breast cancer patients in Southern California

Abstract 6375: Genetic testing station increases access to germline genetic testing

Abstract LB145: Implementing timely germline genetic testing for patients with pancreatic cancer via a point-of-care digital education and health assessment tool

Abstract PO1-08-07: Utilization Management: The Impact of Laboratory Genetic Counseling Oversight on BRCA1 and BRCA2 Targeted Analysis Orders

Universal Genetic Testing for Newly Diagnosed Invasive Breast Cancer

Outcomes of a universal germline screening program in a community urology practice

Abstract PO3-16-06: Perceptions and experiences of patients and healthcare providers on genetic testing and treatment of early breast cancer: qualitative findings

Abstract P3-07-02: Identification of potential germline variants (GV) on tumor comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in patients with advanced breast cancer (BC): BRCA1/2 and beyond

A universal genetic testing initiative for patients with high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer and the implications for cancer treatment

Abstract LB232: Implementation of population-based risk assessment for hereditary cancer in primary care: Results from the Early Detection of Genetic Risk (EDGE) Trial

Abstract PO1-10-07: A Video Intervention to Improve Patient Understanding of Tumor Genomic Testing in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: Primary Results of a Prospective Intervention Trial

Abstract 7333: From provider discussion to test completion: Evaluating cancer genetic services in a diverse academic comprehensive cancer care population

Abstract P6-01-09: Efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy and germline mutational status in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: a unicenter retrospective analysis with long-term follow-up

Incidence of germline genetic testing in Veterans with breast cancer in the Veterans Health Administration.

Abstract P2-09-19: Inequitable access to genetic testing leads to missed screening and prevention opportunities for individuals at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Implementing a genetic testing station in a safety net setting for equitable genetic testing and counseling.

Utilization of genomic tumor testing (GTT) among community oncologists participating in SWOG S2108CD.

Abstract A008: Empowering equity: Accelerated germline genetic testing for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma erodes delays, democratizes access, and mitigates disparity

Disseminating universal genetic testing to a diverse, indigent patient population at a county hospital gynecologic oncology clinic

The Breast Cancer Genetic Testing Experience: Probing the Potential Utility of an Online Decision Aid in Risk Perception and Decision Making