BackgroundIdentifying patients with BRCA mutations is clinically important to inform on the potential response to treatment and for risk management of patients and their relatives. However, traditional referral routes may not meet clinical needs, and therefore, mainstreaming cancer genetics has been shown to be effective in some high-income and high health-literacy settings. To date, no study has reported on the feasibility of mainstreaming in low-income and middle-income settings, where the service considerations and health literacy could detrimentally affect the feasibility of mainstreaming.MethodsThe Mainstreaming Genetic Counselling for Ovarian Cancer Patients (MaGiC) study is a prospective, two-arm observational study comparing oncologist-led and genetics-led counselling. This study included 790 multiethnic patients with ovarian cancer from 23 sites in Malaysia. We compared the impact of different method of delivery of genetic counselling on the uptake of genetic testing and assessed the feasibility, knowledge and satisfaction of patients with ovarian cancer.ResultsOncologists were satisfied with the mainstreaming experience, with 95% indicating a desire to incorporate testing into their clinical practice. The uptake of genetic testing was similar in the mainstreaming and genetics arm (80% and 79%, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high, whereas decision conflict and psychological impact were low in both arms of the study. Notably, decisional conflict, although lower than threshold, was higher for the mainstreaming group compared with the genetics arm. Overall, 13.5% of patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and there was no difference between psychosocial measures for carriers in both arms.ConclusionThe MaGiC study demonstrates that mainstreaming cancer genetics is feasible in low-resource and middle-resource Asian setting and increased coverage for genetic testing.

Cascade testing for families with BRCA pathogenic variants is important to identify relatives who are carriers. These relatives can benefit from appropriate risk management and preventative strategies arising from an inherited increased risk of breast, ovarian, prostate, melanoma, and pancreatic cancers. Cascade testing has the poten-

There is an increasing number of cancer patients undertaking treatment-focused genetic testing despite not having a strong family history or high a priori risk of being carriers because of the decreasing cost of genetic testing and development of new therapies. There are limited studies on the psychosocial outcome of a positive result among breast cancer patients who are at low a priori risk, particularly in women of Asian descent. Breast cancer patients enrolled under the Malaysian Breast Cancer Genetic Study between October 2002 and February 2018 were tested for BRCA1, BRCA2 and PALB2 genes. All 104 carriers identified were invited by a research genetic counsellor for result disclosure. Of the 104 carriers, 64% (N = 66) had low a priori risk as determined by PENN II scores. Psychosocial, risk perception and health behaviour measures survey were conducted at baseline (pre-result disclosure), and at two to six weeks after result disclosure. At baseline, younger carriers with high a priori risk had higher Cancer Worry Scale scores than those with low a priori risk but all scores were within acceptable range. Around 75% and 55% of high a priori risk carriers as well as 80% and 67% of low a priori risk carriers had problems in the “living with cancer” and “children” psychosocial domains respectively. All carriers regardless of their a priori risk demonstrated an improved risk perception that also positively influenced their intent to undergo risk management procedures. This study has shown that with sufficient counselling and support, low a priori risk carriers are able to cope psychologically, have improved perceived risk and increased intent for positive health behaviour despite having less anticipation from a family history prior to knowing their germline carrier status.