Feasibility of blood testing combined with PET-CT to screen for cancer and guide intervention

Cancer treatments are often more successful when the disease is detected early. We evaluated the feasibility and safety of multicancer blood testing coupled with positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) imaging to detect cancer in a prospective, interventional study of 10,006 women not previously known to have cancer. Positive blood tests were independently confirmed by a diagnostic PET-CT, which also localized the cancer. Twenty-six cancers were detected by blood testing. Of these, 15 underwent PET-CT imaging and nine (60%) were surgically excised. Twenty-four additional cancers were detected by standard-of-care screening and 46 by neither approach. One percent of participants underwent PET-CT imaging based on false-positive blood tests, and 0.22% underwent a futile invasive diagnostic procedure. These data demonstrate that multicancer blood testing combined with PET-CT can be safely incorporated into routine clinical care, in some cases leading to surgery with intent to cure.

Clinical outcomes of a genomic screening program for actionable genetic conditions

Purpose

Three genetic conditions—hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, Lynch syndrome, and familial hypercholesterolemia—have tier 1 evidence for interventions that reduce morbidity and mortality, prompting proposals to screen unselected populations for these conditions. We examined the impact of genomic screening on risk management and early detection in an unselected population.

Methods

Observational study of electronic health records (EHR) among individuals in whom a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a tier 1 gene was discovered through Geisinger’s MyCode project. EHR of all eligible participants was evaluated for a prior genetic diagnosis and, among participants without such a diagnosis, relevant personal/family history, postdisclosure clinical diagnoses, and postdisclosure risk management.

Results

Eighty-seven percent of participants (305/351) did not have a prior genetic diagnosis of their tier 1 result. Of these, 65% had EHR evidence of relevant personal and/or family history of disease. Of 255 individuals eligible to have risk management, 70% (n = 179) had a recommended risk management procedure after results disclosure. Thirteen percent of participants (41/305) received a relevant clinical diagnosis after results disclosure.

Conclusion

Genomic screening programs can identify previously unrecognized individuals at increased risk of cancer and heart disease and facilitate risk management and early cancer detection.

An analysis of growth in the genetic counseling profession 2009 to 2019

e13526

Background: Genetic counselors (GCs) are health care professionals who provide support to patients and physicians navigating the rapidly changing landscape of genetic testing and the genetic underpinnings of disease. Increased demand for genetic counseling services prompted an analysis of changes in the workforce over the last decade. Methods: To quantify the growth in the GC profession in the U.S and Canada in the last decade, we acquired data from the American Board of Genetic Counseling, National Society of Genetic Counselors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counselors, Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling and Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors. Results: Between 2009 and 2019, the workforce more than doubled, growing from 2,205 ABGC-certified GCs to 5,172. In Canada, the number of CAGC-certified GCs has grown from 211 in 2009 to 327 in 2019. Growth is striking in cancer genetic counseling; the proportion of GCs providing direct patient care in North America who report cancer as a primary specialty has increased from 25% in 2008 to 50% in 2019. Similar growth has been seen in training opportunities for GCs. The number of accredited graduate programs has increased from 33 in 2009 to 51 in 2019, with several more in development. Combined, these programs had 464 training slots in 2019, up from 223 in 2009. In 2019, 1569 applicants registered for the applicant match for training. Training opportunities and clinical genetic counselors are concentrated in large metropolitan areas, with over half of GCs working in 28 metro regions. GC services in rural areas are increasingly provided remotely via telemedicine, with 59% of GCs in direct patient care in 2018 reporting providing services by phone and 19% using web or video services to deliver care. In cancer genetics, about 50% of GCs nationwide reported in 2018 their 3rd next available appointment for new patients was within 14 days. Conclusions: The past decade has seen significant growth in the numbers of GCs and more patients have access to GCs than a decade ago. Reimbursement for services remains a significant barrier to access. Further research is warranted to understand additional political, administrative and logistical facilitators and barriers to providing care to all who need genetics services.

Mammography utilization among women with a negative circulating tumor DNA-based early cancer detection test

1563

Background: Blood-based tests may enable minimally invasive detection of multiple cancer types. One such test, CancerSEEK, employs ctDNA and protein biomarkers for this purpose. Test performance has been evaluated in women without a history of cancer in an ongoing prospective study called DETECT-A. The introduction of such blood tests holds promise, and their future utility lies in augmenting, not displacing, standard-of-care (SOC) cancer screening. One important safety concern is that a negative test result could provide false reassurance that discourages adherence to SOC cancer screening. To investigate this possibility, we studied delivery of mammography to DETECT-A participants before and after receipt of a negative CancerSEEK result. Methods: DETECT-A screened 10,000 women aged 65-75 using CancerSEEK. Participants completed a survey about cancer screening at enrollment and at one-year post-enrollment. We analyzed only those participants who had received a negative CancerSEEK result, were insured by Geisinger Health Plan (GHP), and had completed both surveys. GHP claims data were used to identify mammograms performed within one year prior-to and post-enrollment. Overall utilization was determined by combining claims and survey data at enrollment and one-year post-enrollment. In addition to comparing SOC screening rates pre- versus post-testing, we evaluated the impact of primary care physician (PCP) type (Geisinger versus any other institution), as screening reminder mechanisms differ between institutions. Results: Of the 2,241 participants who met analysis criteria, 73.6% (n = 1,650) had a mammogram in the year before enrollment while a significantly great number (79.3%, n = 1,777) did so during the one-year follow-up (χ2(1) = 59.05, p < 0.001). At enrollment, there were 591 participants who had not had a mammogram completed in the previous year, but 404 (68.4%) of them did have a mammogram during the one-year follow-up. The rate of change in mammography utilization did not differ between those who had a Geisinger versus a non-Geisinger PCP (χ2(2) = 1.83, p = 0.40). Conclusions: Participants in a study using a novel blood test for earlier cancer detection had a significantly higher rate of annual mammography after study enrollment and testing. These results indicate that introduction of a minimally invasive ctDNA and protein biomarker-based cancer screening test may engender greater, not lesser, utilization of SOC cancer screening. Further study is required to understand the root causes of increased utilization in this context.

Pediatric reporting of genomic results study (PROGRESS): a mixed-methods, longitudinal, observational cohort study protocol to explore disclosure of actionable adult- and pediatric-onset genomic variants to minors and their parents

BACKGROUND

Exome and genome sequencing are routinely used in clinical care and research. These technologies allow for the detection of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in clinically actionable genes. However, fueled in part by a lack of empirical evidence, controversy surrounds the provision of genetic results for adult-onset conditions to minors and their parents. We have designed a mixed-methods, longitudinal cohort study to collect empirical evidence to advance this debate.

METHODS

Pediatric participants in the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative with available exome sequence data will have their variant files assessed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in 60 genes designated as actionable by MyCode. Eight of these genes are associated with adult-onset conditions (Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome, MUTYH-associated polyposis, HFE-Associated Hereditary Hemochromatosis), while the remaining genes have pediatric onset. Prior to clinical confirmation of results, pediatric MyCode participants and their parents/legal guardians will be categorized into three study groups: 1) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with adult-onset disease, 2) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with pediatric-onset disease or with risk reduction interventions that begin in childhood, and 3) those with no apparent genomic result who are sex- and age-matched to Groups 1 and 2. Validated and published quantitative measures, semi-structured interviews, and a review of electronic health record data conducted over a 12-month period following disclosure of results will allow for comparison of psychosocial and behavioral outcomes among parents of minors (ages 0-17) and adolescents (ages 11-17) in each group.

DISCUSSION

These data will provide guidance about the risks and benefits of informing minors and their family members about clinically actionable, adult-onset genetic conditions and, in turn, help to ensure these patients receive care that promotes physical and psychosocial health.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03832985. Registered 6 February 2019.

Understanding the Return of Genomic Sequencing Results Process: Content Review of Participant Summary Letters in the eMERGE Research Network

A challenge in returning genomic test results to research participants is how best to communicate complex and clinically nuanced findings to participants in a manner that is scalable to the large numbers of participants enrolled. The purpose of this study was to examine the features of genetic results letters produced at each Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network site to assess their readability and content. Letters were collected from each site, and a qualitative analysis of letter content and a quantitative analysis of readability statistics were performed. Because letters were produced independently at each eMERGE site, significant heterogeneity in readability and content was found. The content of letters varied widely from a baseline of notifying participants that results existed to more detailed information about positive or negative results, as well as materials for sharing with family members. Most letters were significantly above the Centers for Disease Control-suggested reading level for health communication. While continued effort should be applied to make letters easier to understand, the ongoing challenge of explaining complex genomic information, the implications of negative test results, and the uncertainty that comes with some types of test and result makes simplifying letter text challenging.

Effect of Sociodemographic Factors on Uptake of a Patient-Facing Information Technology Family Health History Risk Assessment Platform

OBJECTIVE

Investigate sociodemographic differences in the use of a patient-facing family health history (FHH)-based risk assessment platform.

METHODS

In this large multisite trial with a diverse patient population, we evaluated the relationship between sociodemographic factors and FHH health risk assessment uptake using an information technology (IT) platform. The entire study was administered online, including consent, baseline survey, and risk assessment completion. We used multivariate logistic regression to model effect of sociodemographic factors on study progression. Quality of FHH data entered as defined as relatives: (1) with age of onset reported on relevant conditions; (2) if deceased, with cause of death and (3) age of death reported; and (4) percentage of relatives with medical history marked as unknown was analyzed using grouped logistic fixed effect regression.

RESULTS

A total of 2,514 participants consented with a mean age of 57 and 10.4% minority. Multivariate modeling showed that progression through study stages was more likely for younger (p-value = 0.005), more educated (p-value = 0.004), non-Asian (p-value = 0.009), and female (p-value = 0.005) participants. Those with lower health literacy or information-seeking confidence were also less likely to complete the study. Most significant drop-out occurred during the risk assessment completion phase. Overall, quality of FHH data entered was high with condition's age of onset reported 87.85%, relative's cause of death 85.55% and age of death 93.76%, and relative's medical history marked as unknown 19.75% of the time.

CONCLUSION

A demographically diverse population was able to complete an IT-based risk assessment but there were differences in attrition by sociodemographic factors. More attention should be given to ensure end-user functionality of health IT and leverage electronic medical records to lessen patient burden.

Patient-Centered Precision Health In A Learning Health Care System: Geisinger's Genomic Medicine Experience

Health care delivery is increasingly influenced by the emerging concepts of precision health and the learning health care system. Although not synonymous with precision health, genomics is a key enabler of individualized care. Delivering patient-centered, genomics-informed care based on individual-level data in the current national landscape of health care delivery is a daunting challenge. Problems to overcome include data generation, analysis, storage, and transfer; knowledge management and representation for patients and providers at the point of care; process management; and outcomes definition, collection, and analysis. Development, testing, and implementation of a genomics-informed program requires multidisciplinary collaboration and building the concepts of precision health into a multilevel implementation framework. Using the principles of a learning health care system provides a promising solution. This article describes the implementation of population-based genomic medicine in an integrated learning health care system-a working example of a precision health program.

Evidence-based assessments of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings: Updates from ClinGen's Actionability Working Group

The use of genome-scale sequencing allows for identification of genetic findings beyond the original indication for testing (secondary findings). The ClinGen Actionability Working Group's (AWG) protocol for evidence synthesis and semi-quantitative metric scoring evaluates four domains of clinical actionability for potential secondary findings: severity and likelihood of the outcome, and effectiveness and nature of the intervention. As of February 2018, the AWG has scored 127 genes associated with 78 disorders (up-to-date topics/scores are available at www.clinicalgenome.org). Scores across these disorders were assessed to compare genes/disorders recommended for return as secondary findings by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) with those not currently recommended. Disorders recommended by the ACMG scored higher on outcome-related domains (severity and likelihood), but not on intervention-related domains (effectiveness and nature of the intervention). Current practices indicate that return of secondary findings will expand beyond those currently recommended by the ACMG. The ClinGen AWG evidence reports and summary scores are not intended as classifications of actionability, rather they provide a resource to aid decision makers as they determine best practices regarding secondary findings. The ClinGen AWG is working with the ACMG Secondary Findings Committee to update future iterations of their secondary findings list.

Exome Sequencing-Based Screening for BRCA1/2 Expected Pathogenic Variants Among Adult Biobank Participants

IMPORTANCE

Detection of disease-associated variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genes allows for cancer prevention and early diagnosis in high-risk individuals.

OBJECTIVES

To identify pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP) BRCA1/2 variants in an unselected research cohort, and to characterize the features associated with P/LP variants.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This is a cross-sectional study of adult volunteers (n = 50 726) who underwent exome sequencing at a single health care system (Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania) from January 1, 2014, to March 1, 2016. Participants are part of the DiscovEHR cohort and were identified through the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative. They consented to a research protocol that included sequencing and return of actionable test results. Clinical data from electronic health records and clinical visits were correlated with variants. Comparisons were made between those with (cases) and those without (controls) P/LP variants in BRCA1/2.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Prevalence of P/LP BRCA1/2 variants in cohort, proportion of variant carriers not previously ascertained through clinical testing, and personal and family history of relevant cancers among BRCA1/2 variant carriers and noncarriers.

RESULTS

Of the 50 726 health system patients who underwent exome sequencing, 50 459 (99.5%) had no expected pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and 267 (0.5%) were BRCA1/2 carriers. Of the 267 cases (148 [55.4%] were women and 119 [44.6%] were men with a mean [range] age of 58.9 [23-90] years), 183 (68.5%) received clinically confirmed results in their electronic health record. Among the 267 participants with P/LP BRCA1/2 variants, 219 (82.0%) had no prior clinical testing, 95 (35.6%) had BRCA1 variants, and 172 (64.4%) had BRCA2 variants. Syndromic cancer diagnoses were present in 11 (47.8%) of the 23 deceased BRCA1/2 carriers and in 56 (20.9%) of all 267 BRCA1/2 carriers. Among women, 31 (20.9%) of 148 variant carriers had a personal history of breast cancer, compared with 1554 (5.2%) of 29 880 noncarriers (odds ratio [OR], 5.95; 95% CI, 3.88-9.13; P < .001). Ovarian cancer history was present in 15 (10.1%) of 148 variant carriers and in 195 (0.6%) of 29 880 variant noncarriers (OR, 18.30; 95% CI, 10.48-31.4; P < .001). Among 89 BRCA1/2 carriers without prior testing but with comprehensive personal and family history data, 44 (49.4%) did not meet published guidelines for clinical testing.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that compared with previous clinical care, exome sequencing-based screening identified 5 times as many individuals with P/LP BRCA1/2 variants. These findings suggest that genomic screening may identify BRCA1/2-associated cancer risk that might otherwise remain undetected within health care systems and may provide opportunities to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients.

A Model for Genome-First Care: Returning Secondary Genomic Findings to Participants and Their Healthcare Providers in a Large Research Cohort

There is growing interest in communicating clinically relevant DNA sequence findings to research participants who join projects with a primary research goal other than the clinical return of such results. Since Geisinger's MyCode Community Health Initiative (MyCode) was launched in 2007, more than 200,000 participants have been broadly consented for discovery research. In 2013 the MyCode consent was amended to include a secondary analysis of research genomic sequences that allows for delivery of clinical results. Since May 2015, pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants from a set list of genes associated with monogenic conditions have prompted "genome-first" clinical encounters. The encounters are described as genome-first because they are identified independent of any clinical parameters. This article (1) details our process for generating clinical results from research data, delivering results to participants and providers, facilitating condition-specific clinical evaluations, and promoting cascade testing of relatives, and (2) summarizes early results and participant uptake. We report on 542 participants who had results uploaded to the electronic health record as of February 1, 2018 and 291 unique clinical providers notified with one or more participant results. Of these 542 participants, 515 (95.0%) were reached to disclose their results and 27 (5.0%) were lost to follow-up. We describe an exportable model for delivery of clinical care through secondary use of research data. In addition, subject and provider participation data from the initial phase of these efforts can inform other institutions planning similar programs.

Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Gene-Disease Associations: An Evidence-Based Framework Developed by the Clinical Genome Resource

With advances in genomic sequencing technology, the number of reported gene-disease relationships has rapidly expanded. However, the evidence supporting these claims varies widely, confounding accurate evaluation of genomic variation in a clinical setting. Despite the critical need to differentiate clinically valid relationships from less well-substantiated relationships, standard guidelines for such evaluation do not currently exist. The NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed a framework to define and evaluate the clinical validity of gene-disease pairs across a variety of Mendelian disorders. In this manuscript we describe a proposed framework to evaluate relevant genetic and experimental evidence supporting or contradicting a gene-disease relationship and the subsequent validation of this framework using a set of representative gene-disease pairs. The framework provides a semiquantitative measurement for the strength of evidence of a gene-disease relationship that correlates to a qualitative classification: "Definitive," "Strong," "Moderate," "Limited," "No Reported Evidence," or "Conflicting Evidence." Within the ClinGen structure, classifications derived with this framework are reviewed and confirmed or adjusted based on clinical expertise of appropriate disease experts. Detailed guidance for utilizing this framework and access to the curation interface is available on our website. This evidence-based, systematic method to assess the strength of gene-disease relationships will facilitate more knowledgeable utilization of genomic variants in clinical and research settings.

Cancer Genetic Counseling and Testing in an Era of Rapid Change

The impacts of the Association for Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad Supreme Court decision regarding patenting DNA segments and multi-gene testing on cancer genetic counseling practice have not been well described. We aimed to assess genetic counselors' perceptions of how their genetic testing-related practices for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) changed after these events. One-hundred fifty-two genetic counselors from the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group completed an anonymous, online, mixed-methods survey in November 2013. The survey presented four hypothetical patients and asked about changes in testing practice. Across the vignettes, a majority of participants reported specific changes in testing decisions following Association for Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad and availability of multi-gene testing. Ninety-three percent of participants reported changing the types of first- and second-line tests they order for HBOC; the degree of change varied geographically. Qualitative analysis indicated that some counselors have altered the counseling session content, trading depth of information for breadth and spending more time counseling about uncertainty. This study shows that cancer genetic counselors are adapting quickly to genetic testing changes, but with wide variability. Findings suggest future research to elucidate clinicians' and patients' preferences for guidance on the clinical implementation of next-generation sequencing.

Cost Comparison of Genetic Testing Strategies in Women With Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Purpose:

The advent of multigene panels has increased genetic testing options for women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We designed a decision model to compare costs and probabilities of identifying a deleterious mutation or variant of uncertain significance (VUS) using different genetic testing strategies.

Methods:

A decision model was developed to compare costs and outcomes of two testing strategies for women with EOC: multigene testing (MGT) versus single-gene testing for BRCA1/2. Outcomes were mean cost and number of deleterious mutations and VUSs identified. Model inputs were obtained from published genetic testing data in EOC. One-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

No family history model: MGT cost $1,160 more on average than BRCA1/2 testing and identified an additional 3.8 deleterious mutations for every 100 women tested. For each additional deleterious mutation identified, MGT cost $30,812 and identified 5.4 additional VUSs. Family history model: MGT cost $654 more on average and identified an additional 7.0 deleterious mutations for every 100 women tested. For each additional deleterious mutation identified, MGT cost $9,909 and identified 2.6 additional VUSs.

Conclusion:

MGT was associated with a higher additional cost per deleterious mutation identified and a higher ratio of VUS burden to actionable information in women with no family history as compared with women with a family history. Family history should be considered when determining an initial genetic testing platform in women with EOC.

Adherence to Recommended Risk Management among Unaffected Women with a BRCA Mutation

Identifying unaffected women with a BRCA mutation can have a significant individual and population health impact on morbidity and mortality if these women adhere to guidelines for managing cancer risk. But, little is known about whether such women are adherent to current guidelines. We conducted telephone surveys of 97 unaffected BRCA mutation carriers who had genetic counseling at least one year prior to the survey to assess adherence to current guidelines, factors associated with adherence, and common reasons for performing and not performing recommended risk management. More than half of participants reported being adherent with current risk management recommendations for breast cancer (69 %, n = 67), ovarian cancer (82 %, n = 74) and both cancers (66 %, n = 64). Older age (OR = 10.53, p = 0.001), white race (OR = 8.93, p = 0.019), higher breast cancer genetics knowledge (OR = 1.67, p = 0.030), higher cancer-specific distress (OR = 1.07, p = 0.002) and higher physical functioning (OR = 1.09, p = 0.009) were significantly associated with adherence to recommended risk management for both cancers. Responses to open-ended questions about reasons for performing and not performing risk management behaviors indicated that participants recognized the clinical utility of these behaviors. Younger individuals and those with lower physical functioning may require targeted interventions to improve adherence, perhaps in the setting of long-term follow-up at a multi-disciplinary hereditary cancer clinic.

Randomized trial of DVD, telephone, and usual care for increasing mammography adherence

The purpose of this study was to test an intervention to increase mammography screening in women 51-75 years of age who had not received a mammogram in the last 15 months. A total of 1681 women were randomized to (1) a mailed tailored interactive DVD, (2) a computer-tailored telephone counseling, or (3) usual care. Women with income below US$75,000 who were in the interactive DVD group had significantly more mammograms than women in usual care. Women with income above US$75,000 had significantly fewer mammograms than women with income less than US$75,000 regardless of group. Further investigation is needed to understand why women with income above US$75,000 did not show the same benefit of the intervention.

Underestimation of risk of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer by BRCAPRO: a multi-institution study

PURPOSE

Identification of the 10% to 15% of patients with ovarian cancer who have germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations is important for management of both patients and relatives. The BRCAPRO model, which estimates mutation likelihood based on personal and family cancer history, can inform genetic testing decisions. This study's purpose was to assess the accuracy of BRCAPRO in women with ovarian cancer.

METHODS

BRCAPRO scores were calculated for 589 patients with ovarian cancer referred for genetic counseling at three institutions. Observed mutations were compared with those predicted by BRCAPRO. Analysis of variance was used to assess factors impacting BRCAPRO accuracy.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty (31%) of 589 patients with ovarian cancer tested positive. At BRCAPRO scores less than 40%, more mutations were observed than expected (93 mutations observed v 34.1 mutations expected; P < .001). If patients with BRCAPRO scores less than 10% had not been tested, 51 (28%) of 180 mutations would have been missed. BRCAPRO underestimated the risk for high-grade serous ovarian cancers but overestimated the risk for other histologies (P < .001), underestimation increased as age at diagnosis decreased (P = .02), and model performance varied by institution (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Patients with ovarian cancer classified as low risk by BRCAPRO are more likely to test positive than predicted. The risk of a mutation in patients with low BRCAPRO scores is high enough to warrant genetic testing. This study demonstrates that assessment of family history by a validated model cannot effectively target testing to a high-risk ovarian cancer patient population, which strongly supports the recommendation to offer BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing to all patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer regardless of family history.

Quality of family history collection with use of a patient facing family history assessment tool

Background

Studies have shown that the quality of family health history (FHH) collection in primary care is inadequate to assess disease risk. To use FHH for risk assessment, collected data must have adequate detail. To address this issue, we developed a patient facing FHH assessment tool, MeTree. In this paper we report the content and quality of the FHH collected using MeTree.

Methods

Design: A hybrid implementation-effectiveness study. Patients were recruited from 2009 to 2012. Setting: Two community primary care clinics in Greensboro, NC. Participants: All non-adopted adult English speaking patients with upcoming appointments were invited to participate. Intervention: Education about and collection of FHH with entry into MeTree. Measures: We report the proportion of pedigrees that were high-quality. High-quality pedigrees are defined as having all the following criteria: (1) three generations of relatives, (2) relatives’ lineage, (3) relatives’ gender, (4) an up-to-date FHH, (5) pertinent negatives noted, (6) age of disease onset in affected relatives, and for deceased relatives, (7) the age and (8) cause of death (Prim Care31:479–495, 2004.).

Results

Enrollment: 1,184. Participant demographics: age range 18-92 (mean 58.8, SD 11.79), 56% male, and 75% white. The median pedigree size was 21 (range 8-71) and the FHH entered into MeTree resulted in a database of 27,406 individuals. FHHs collected by MeTree were found to be high quality in 99.8% (N = 1,182/1,184) as compared to <4% at baseline. An average of 1.9 relatives per pedigree (range 0-50, SD 4.14) had no data reported. For pedigrees where at least one relative has no data (N = 497/1,184), 4.97 relatives per pedigree (range 1-50, SD 5.44) had no data. Talking with family members before using MeTree significantly decreased the proportion of relatives with no data reported (4.98% if you talked to your relative vs. 10.85% if you did not, p-value < 0.001.).

Conclusion

Using MeTree improves the quantity and quality of the FHH data that is collected and talking with relatives prior to the collection of FHH significantly improves the quantity and quality of the data provided. This allows more patients to be accurately risk stratified and offered appropriate preventive care guided by their risk level.

Trial number

NCT01372553

Patient and primary care provider experience using a family health history collection, risk stratification, and clinical decision support tool: a type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness trial

BACKGROUND

Family health history (FHH) is the single strongest predictor of disease risk and yet is significantly underutilized in primary care. We developed a patient facing FHH collection tool, MeTree, that uses risk stratification to generate clinical decision support for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, hereditary cancer syndromes, and thrombosis. Here we present data on the experience of patients and providers after integration of MeTree into 2 primary care practices.

METHODS

This was a Type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness study in 3 community-based primary care clinics in Greensboro, NC. All non-adopted adult English speaking patients with upcoming routine appointments were invited. Patients were recruited from December 2009 to the present and followed for one year. Ease of integration of MeTree into clinical practice at the two intervention clinics was evaluated through patient surveys after their appointment and at 3 months post-visit, and physician surveys 3 months after tool integration.

RESULTS

Total enrollment =1,184. Average time to complete MeTree = 27 minutes. Patients found MeTree: easy to use (93%), easy to understand (97%), useful (98%), raised awareness of disease risk (85%), and changed how they think about their health (86%). Of the 26% (N = 311) asking for assistance to complete the tool, age (65 sd 9.4 vs. 57 sd 11.8, p-value < 0.00) and large pedigree size (24.4 sd 9.81 vs. 22.2 sd 8.30, p-value < 0.00) were the only significant factors; 77% of those requiring assistance were over the age of 60. Providers (N = 14) found MeTree: improved their practice (86%), improved their understanding of FHH (64%), made practice easier (79%), and worthy of recommending to their peers (93%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that MeTree has broad acceptance and support from both patients and providers and can be implemented without disruption to workflow.

Development and validation of a primary care-based family health history and decision support program (MeTree)

INTRODUCTION

Family health history is a strong predictor of disease risk. To reduce the morbidity and mortality of many chronic diseases, risk-stratified evidence-based guidelines strongly encourage the collection and synthesis of family health history to guide selection of primary prevention strategies. However, the collection and synthesis of such information is not well integrated into clinical practice. To address barriers to collection and use of family health histories, the Genomedical Connection developed and validated MeTree, a Web-based, patient-facing family health history collection and clinical decision support tool. MeTree is designed for integration into primary care practices as part of the genomic medicine model for primary care.

METHODS

We describe the guiding principles, operational characteristics, algorithm development, and coding used to develop MeTree. Validation was performed through stakeholder cognitive interviewing, a genetic counseling pilot program, and clinical practice pilot programs in 2 community-based primary care clinics.

RESULTS

Stakeholder feedback resulted in changes to MeTree's interface and changes to the phrasing of clinical decision support documents. The pilot studies resulted in the identification and correction of coding errors and the reformatting of clinical decision support documents. MeTree's strengths in comparison with other tools are its seamless integration into clinical practice and its provision of action-oriented recommendations guided by providers' needs.

LIMITATIONS

The tool was validated in a small cohort.

CONCLUSION

MeTree can be integrated into primary care practices to help providers collect and synthesize family health history information from patients with the goal of improving adherence to risk-stratified evidence-based guidelines.