Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Genetic Testing at a Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Center

Integration of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for All New Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends genetic testing (GT) for all women with breast cancer (BC), but implementation and uptake of GT has not been well-described.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for newly diagnosed BC patients or patients with a newly identified recurrence of BC seen in a multidisciplinary clinic (MDBC) who were offered genetic counseling (GC) and GT.

RESULTS

The 138 women attending the MDBC had a median age of 54 years and comprised non-Hispanic whites (46%), Asians (28%), Hispanics (17%), blacks (4%), and other (5%). Of the 105 (76%) patients without prior GT, 100 (95%) accepted GC, with 93 (93%) of these 100 patients undergoing GT. The patients meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for GT were more likely to undergo GT. Testing was performed with a 67- to 84-gene panel, together with an 8- to 9-gene STAT panel if needed. Among 120 patients with reports available, including 33 patients previously tested, 15 (12%) were positive (1 BLM, 1 BRCA1, 3 BRCA2, 1 BRIP1, 1 CFTR, 1 CHEK2, 1 MUTYH, 1 PALB2, 1 PRSS1, 1 RAD50, 1 RET, and 2 TP53), 44 (37%) were negative, and 61 (51%) had an uncertain variant. The median time to STAT results (n = 50) was 8 days. The STAT results were available before surgery for 47 (98%) of the 48 STAT patients undergoing surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

New BC patients attending the MDBC demonstrated high rates of acceptance of GC and GT. The combination of GC and GT can offer timely information critical to patient risk assessment and treatment planning.

Awareness and use of genetic testing: An analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey 2020

PURPOSE

Genetic testing is a tool used in a variety of settings for medical and nonhealth related purposes. The goal of this analysis was to better understand the awareness and use of genetic testing in the United States.

METHODS

Data from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey 5 cycle 4 were used to assess the awareness and use of genetic testing by demographic characteristics, personal cancer history, and family cancer history.

RESULTS

Overall, 75% of participants were aware of genetic testing and 19% of participants had genetic testing. Ancestry testing was the most common type of testing that the participants were aware of and had received. Non-Hispanic Asian, Non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic respondents and participants with incomes less than $20,000 were less likely to be aware of and have received any type of genetic testing than the Non-Hispanic White participants and participants with higher income, respectively. Participants with a family history of cancer were more likely to be aware of cancer genetic testing than those without, and participants with a personal history of cancer were more likely to have had cancer genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

It appears awareness of genetic testing is increasing in the United States, and differences in awareness persist by race/ethnicity and income.

Multigene Panel Testing Yields High Rates of Clinically Actionable Variants Among Patients With Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Whether germline multigene panel testing (MGPT) should be performed in all individuals with colorectal cancer (CRC) remains uncertain. Therefore, we aimed to determine the yield and potential clinical impact of MGPT across a large, diverse CRC cohort.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of adults with CRC who underwent MGPT of > 10 genes at a commercial laboratory between March 2015 and May 2021. All data were prospectively collected through a single commercial laboratory and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 34,244 individuals with a history of CRC underwent germline MPGT and were included in the analysis. This cohort was predominantly female (60.7%), White (70.6%), and age 50 years or older (68.9%), with 35.5% also reporting a noncolorectal malignancy. At least one pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variant (PGV) was found in 4,864 (14.2%), with 3,111 (9.1%) having a PGV associated with increased CRC/polyposis risk and 1,048 (3.1%) having an otherwise clinically actionable PGV. Larger gene panels were not clearly associated with higher yield of clinically actionable PGVs. PGVs were more prevalent in individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent (P < .001) and Hispanic ethnicity (P < .001). Across all ages, panel sizes, and races/ethnicities, the rate of clinically actionable PGVs on MGPT was 7.9% or greater. A variant of uncertain significance was identified in 13,094 individuals (38.2%). Identification of a variant of uncertain significance associated with panel size (P < .001) and was lower in individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent (P < .001), but higher in Black, Asian, and Hispanic individuals (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date examining MGPT in CRC, demonstrating high rates of clinically actionable variants detected across all age groups, panel sizes, and racial/ethnic groups. This work supports consideration of broadening germline genetic testing criteria for individuals with CRC.

Disparities in cancer genetics care by race/ethnicity among pan-cancer patients with pathogenic germline variants

BACKGROUND

Germline risk assessment is increasing as part of cancer care; however, disparities in subsequent genetic counseling are unknown.

METHODS

Pan-cancer patients were prospectively consented to tumor-normal sequencing via custom next generation sequencing panel (Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets) inclusive of germline analysis of ≥76 genes from January 2015 through December 2019 (97.5% research nonbillable) with protocol for genetics referral. Rates of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PVs) and downstream counseling were compared across ancestry groups (mutually exclusive groups based on self-reported race/ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jewish [AJ] heritage) using nonparametric tests and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among 15,775 patients (59.6%, non-Hispanic [NH]-White; 15.7%, AJ; 20.5%, non-White [6.9%, Asian; 6.8%, Black/African American (AA); 6.7%, Hispanic; 0.1%, Other], and 4.2%, unknown), 2663 (17%) had a PV. Non-White patients had a lower PV rate (n = 433, 13.4%) compared to NH-Whites (n = 1451, 15.4%) and AJ patients (n = 683, 27.6%), p < .01, with differences in mostly moderate and low/recessive/uncertain penetrance variants. Among 2239 patients with new PV, 1652 (73.8%) completed recommended genetic counseling. Non-White patients had lower rates of genetic counseling (67.7%) than NH-White (73.7%) and AJ patients (78.8%), p < .01, with lower rates occurring in Black/AA (63%) compared to NH-White patients, even after adjustment for confounders (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.97; p = .036). Non-White, particularly Black/AA and Asian, probands had a trend toward lower rates and numbers of at-risk family members being seen for counseling/genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite minimizing barriers to genetic testing, non-White patients were less likely to receive recommended cancer genetics follow-up, with potential implications for oncologic care, cancer risk reduction, and at-risk family members.

LAY SUMMARY

Genetic testing is becoming an important part of cancer care, and we wanted to see if genetics care was different between individuals of different backgrounds. We studied 15,775 diverse patients with cancer who had genetic testing using a test called MSK-IMPACT that was covered by research funding. Clinically important genetic findings were high in all groups. However, Black patients were less likely to get recommended counseling compared to White patients. Even after removing many roadblocks, non-White and especially Black patients were less likely to get recommended genetics care, which may affect their cancer treatments and families.

Transcriptome analysis provides critical answers to the "variants of uncertain significance" conundrum

While whole-genome and exome sequencing have transformed our collective understanding of genetics' role in disease pathogenesis, there are certain conditions and populations for whom DNA-level data fails to identify the underlying genetic etiology. Specifically, patients of non-White race and non-European ancestry are disproportionately affected by "variants of unknown/uncertain significance" (VUS), limiting the scope of precision medicine for minority patients and perpetuating health disparities. VUS often include deep intronic and splicing variants which are difficult to interpret from DNA data alone. RNA analysis can illuminate the consequences of VUS, thereby allowing for their reclassification as pathogenic versus benign. Here we review the critical role transcriptome analysis plays in clarifying VUS in both neoplastic and non-neoplastic diseases.

Characterization of Oncology Clinical Trials Using Germline Genetic Data

IMPORTANCE

The recent successes of poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and belzutifan support germline genetic data as an exciting, accessible source for biomarkers in cancer treatment. This study hypothesizes, however, that most oncology clinical trials using germline data largely prioritize BRCA1/2 as biomarkers and PARP inhibitors as therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize past and ongoing oncology trials that use germline data.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cross-sectional study of oncology trials used the Informa Trialtrove database to evaluate trial attributes. Trials using germline information (including the terms germline, hereditary, or inherited in the title, treatment plan, interventions, end points, objectives, results, or notes) and conducted globally between December 1, 1990, and April 4, 2022 (data freeze date), were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Trials by cancer type, phase, participants, sponsor type, end points, outcomes, and locations were described. Associated biomarkers and mechanisms of action for studied therapeutic interventions were counted. How germline data in trial inclusion and exclusion criteria are associated with end points, outcomes, and enrollment were also examined.

RESULTS

A total of 887 of 84 297 (1.1%) oncology clinical trials in the Trialtrove database that use germline data were identified. Most trials were conducted in cancer types where PARP inhibitors are already approved. A total of 74.8% (672) of trials were performed in the phase 2 setting or above. Trials were primarily sponsored by industry (523 trials [59.0%]), academia (382 trials [43.1%]), and the government (274 trials [30.9%]), where trials may have multiple sponsor types. Among 343 trials using germline data with outcomes in Trialtrove, 180 (52.5%) reported meeting primary end points. Although BRCA1/2 are the most frequent biomarkers seen (BRCA1, 224 trials [25.3%]; BRCA2, 228 trials [25.7%]), trials also examine pharmacogenomic variants and germline mediators of somatic biomarkers. PARP inhibitors or immunotherapy were tested in 69.9% of trials; PARP inhibition was the most frequently studied mechanism (367 trials [41.4%]). An overwhelming number of trials using germline data were conducted in the US, Canada, and Europe vs other countries, mirroring disparities in cancer genetics data. Germline data in inclusion and exclusion criteria are associated with altered end point, outcomes, and enrollment compared with oncology trials with no germline data use. Examples of inclusion and exclusion criteria regarding germline data that may unintentionally exclude patients were identified.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that for germline biomarkers to gain clinical relevance, trials must expand biomarkers, therapies, and populations under study.

Interest in genetic testing and risk-reducing behavioral changes: results from a community health assessment in New York City

Risk-based genetic tests are often used to determine cancer risk, when to initiate screening, and frequency of screening, but rely on interest in genetic testing. We examined overall interest in genetic testing for cancer risk assessment and willingness to change behavior, and whether these are affected by demographic or socioeconomic factors.We conducted a community needs health survey in 2019 among primary care and cancer patients, family members and community members in New York City. We used univariable analysis and relative risk regression to examine interest in genetic cancer risk testing and willingness to modify lifestyle behaviors in response to an informative genetic test.Of the 1225 participants, 74.0% (n = 906) expressed interest in having a genetic test to assess cancer risk. Interest in genetic testing was high across all demographic and socioeconomic groups; reported interest in genetic testing by group ranged from 65.0 (participants aged 65 years and older) to 83.6% (participants below federal poverty level). Among the 906 participants that reported interest in genetic testing, 79.6% were willing to change eating habits, 66.5% to change exercise habits, and 49.5% to lose weight in response to an informative genetic test result.Our study reveals that interest in genetic testing for cancer risk is high among patients and community members and is high across demographic and socioeconomic groups, as is the reported willingness to change behavior. Based on these results, we recommend that population-based genetic testing may result in greater reduction cancer risk, particularly among minoritized groups.

Provider discussion of genetic counseling among high-risk Spanish-preferring Latina breast cancer survivors

Among high-risk breast cancer (BC) survivors, genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) may inform cascade testing and risk management. Compared to non-Hispanic White BC survivors, Spanish-preferring Latina BC survivors are less likely to report discussing GC with a healthcare provider. However, few studies have examined Latinas' experiences with GC/GT, particularly outside of the mainland USA. This study aimed to compare frequency of provider discussion of GC between Spanish-preferring Latina BC survivors living in Florida (FL) and Puerto Rico (PR). We conducted secondary data analysis of baseline assessments from a randomized pilot of an educational intervention for Spanish-preferring Latina BC survivors. Participants (N = 52) were GC/GT-naive, but met clinical criteria for GC/GT referral. Participants self-reported sociodemographic, clinical, and cultural variables, including previous provider discussion of GC. Descriptive statistics characterized frequency of GC discussion. Logistic regression examined the relationships between sociodemographic, clinical, and cultural characteristics and GC discussion. Only 31% of participants reported previous GC discussion. More participants from PR reported having GC discussions (43% vs. 21% in the mainland USA). In multivariable analyses, greater likelihood of GC discussion was associated with PR (vs. mainland USA) residence (odds ratio [OR] = 6.00, p = .03), older age at baseline (OR = 1.19, p = .04), and younger age at BC diagnosis (OR = 0.80, p = .03). Few high-risk Spanish-preferring Latina BC survivors in the mainland USA and PR had discussed GC with their providers. These results highlight a gap in the implementation of evidence-based genetics guidelines. Provider-directed interventions may be needed to increase uptake of GC/GT among Latina BC survivors.

Association of Disparities in Family History and Family Cancer History in the Electronic Health Record With Sex, Race, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, and Language Preference in 2 Large US Health Care Systems

IMPORTANCE

Clinical decision support (CDS) algorithms are increasingly being implemented in health care systems to identify patients for specialty care. However, systematic differences in missingness of electronic health record (EHR) data may lead to disparities in identification by CDS algorithms.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the availability and comprehensiveness of cancer family history information (FHI) in patients' EHRs by sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and language preference in 2 large health care systems in 2021.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective EHR quality improvement study used EHR data from 2 health care systems: University of Utah Health (UHealth) and NYU Langone Health (NYULH). Participants included patients aged 25 to 60 years who had a primary care appointment in the previous 3 years. Data were collected or abstracted from the EHR from December 10, 2020, to October 31, 2021, and analyzed from June 15 to October 31, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Prior collection of cancer FHI in primary care settings.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Availability was defined as having any FHI and any cancer FHI in the EHR and was examined at the patient level. Comprehensiveness was defined as whether a cancer family history observation in the EHR specified the type of cancer diagnosed in a family member, the relationship of the family member to the patient, and the age at onset for the family member and was examined at the observation level.

RESULTS

Among 144 484 patients in the UHealth system, 53.6% were women; 74.4% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino and 67.6% were White; and 83.0% had an English language preference. Among 377 621 patients in the NYULH system, 55.3% were women; 63.2% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino, and 55.3% were White; and 89.9% had an English language preference. Patients from historically medically undeserved groups-specifically, Black vs White patients (UHealth: 17.3% [95% CI, 16.1%-18.6%] vs 42.8% [95% CI, 42.5%-43.1%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.0%-24.8%] vs 33.8% [95% CI, 33.6%-34.0%]), Hispanic or Latino vs non-Hispanic or non-Latino patients (UHealth: 27.2% [95% CI, 26.5%-27.8%] vs 40.2% [95% CI, 39.9%-40.5%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.1%-24.7%] vs 31.6% [95% CI, 31.4%-31.8%]), Spanish-speaking vs English-speaking patients (UHealth: 18.4% [95% CI, 17.2%-19.1%] vs 40.0% [95% CI, 39.7%-40.3%]; NYULH: 15.1% [95% CI, 14.6%-15.6%] vs 31.1% [95% CI, 30.9%-31.2%), and men vs women (UHealth: 30.8% [95% CI, 30.4%-31.2%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 42.6%-43.3%]; NYULH: 23.1% [95% CI, 22.9%-23.3%] vs 34.9% [95% CI, 34.7%-35.1%])-had significantly lower availability and comprehensiveness of cancer FHI (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that systematic differences in the availability and comprehensiveness of FHI in the EHR may introduce informative presence bias as inputs to CDS algorithms. The observed differences may also exacerbate disparities for medically underserved groups. System-, clinician-, and patient-level efforts are needed to improve the collection of FHI.

Assessing Vietnamese American patient perspectives on population genetic testing in primary care: A community-engaged approach

Achieving health equity in precision medicine remains a critical challenge because of the continued underrepresentation of non-white populations in research and barriers to genetic services. The goal of this study was to explore Vietnamese American (VA) participant views toward incorporating genetics in routine healthcare to better serve the local VA community within an integrated health system offering primary care-based population genetic testing to adults for conditions that could be prevented or mitigated when detected early. We conducted semi-structured interviews from August–September 2021, with 22 individuals receiving primary care who self-identified as Vietnamese or VA, and employed rapid qualitative analysis (RQA) to identify key concepts. Community research team members participated in study design, data collection, RQA, and reporting. Findings from the interviews revealed that several participant perceived challenges to genetic testing, which included lack of information, fear of results impact, cost, and privacy concerns. Participants suggested various ways to overcome some of these barriers, such as decreasing the cost of testing, receiving information from a trusted physician, using preferred education strategies in the community, and having convenient access to testing. Study participants also shared a variety of trusted sources they would seek out for advice on genetic testing. This study with VAs identified barriers, facilitators, and messengers to offering genetic testing in a local healthcare context and demonstrated how community-engaged research coupled with RQA is a promising approach for healthcare institutions as they identify needs and tailor strategies for implementing population genetic screening programs in local ethnic communities.

Training promotores to lead virtual hereditary breast cancer education sessions for Spanish-speaking individuals of Latin American heritage in California

Background

Awareness about hereditary breast cancer and the preventative steps to minimize disease risk is lower in Hispanic/Latina individuals than non-Hispanic White women in the United States. For this reason, we developed a promotor-based hereditary breast cancer education and risk identification program for self-identified Hispanic/Latina women, which included training promotores in basic genetics and hereditary breast cancer. This study explored promotores’ experiences receiving training and participating in virtual practice sessions as well as changes in knowledge about hereditary breast cancer.

Methods

A total of ten promotores underwent a two-week basic training led by the promotores organization and an eight-hour in person hereditary breast cancer training workshop. Demographic information along with pre- and post-training surveys were completed by ten promotores who participated in the training workshop. Surveys were given to determine changes in knowledge of hereditary breast cancer and genetics. Of the ten promotores, two were selected to lead community education sessions and participated in 6 semi-structured interviews. All interviews and practice sessions were conducted using a virtual platform.

Results

The data revealed that after the 8-h workshop and practice sessions, promotores felt confident about their ability to conduct virtual education sessions with the community. Interviews identified key facilitators to success such as a supportive environment, practice presentations, and personal motivation. Learning the online platform was considered the biggest challenge by the promotores, as opposed to learning complex genetics topics.

Conclusions

These results provide further evidence supporting promotores’ willingness and ability to provide health education on relatively complex topics. It also offers insight into the challenges of presenting information to vulnerable populations using an online platform and the additional support that is required to ensure a positive outcome.

Germline genetics of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

An important fraction (>/~10%) of men with high-risk, localized prostate cancer and metastatic prostate cancer carry germline (heritable) pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (also known as mutations) in DNA repair genes. These can represent known or suspected autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndromes. Growing evidence suggests that pathogenic variants in key genes involved in homologous recombination and mismatch DNA repair are important in prostate cancer initiation and/or the development of metastases.

AIMS

Here we provide a comprehensive review regarding individual genes and available literature regarding risks for developing prostate cancer, and discuss current national guidelines for germline genetic testing in the prostate cancer population and treatment implications.

RESULTS

The association with prostate cancer risk and treatment implications is best understood for those with germline mutations of BRCA2, with emerging data supporting associations with ATM, CHEK2, BRCA1, HOXB13, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, TP53 and NBN. Treatment implications in the metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer setting include rucaparib and olaparib, and pembrolizumab with potential clinical trial opportunities in earlier disease settings.

DISCUSSION

The data summarized in this review has led to the expansion of national guidelines for germline genetic testing in prostate cancer. We review these guidelines, and discuss the importance of cascade genetic testing of relatives, diverse populations with attention to inclusion, as well as prostate cancer screening updates and clinical trial opportunities for men who carry genetic risk factors for prostate cancer.

Public Interest in Population Genetic Screening for Cancer Risk

An emerging role for DNA sequencing is to identify people at risk for an inherited cancer syndrome in order to prevent or ameliorate the manifestation of symptoms. Two cancer syndromes, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome meet the “Tier 1” evidence threshold established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for routine testing of patients with a personal or family history of cancer. Advancements in genomic medicine have accelerated public health pilot programs for these highly medically actionable conditions. In this brief report, we provide descriptive statistics from a survey of 746 US respondents from a Qualtrics panel about the public’s awareness of genetic testing, interest in learning about their cancer risk, and likelihood of participating in a population genetic screening (PGS) test. Approximately of half the respondents were aware of genetic testing for inherited cancer risk (n = 377/745, 50.6%) and would choose to learn about their cancer risk (n-309/635, 48.7%). Characteristics of those interested in learning about their cancer risk differed by educational attainment, age, income, insurance status, having a primary care doctor, being aware of genetic testing, and likelihood of sharing information with family (p < 0.05). A sizeable majority of the respondents who were interested in about learning their cancer risk also said that they were likely to participate in a PGS test that involved a clinical appointment and blood draw, but no out-of-pocket cost (n = 255/309, 82.5%). Reasons for not wanting to participate included not finding test results interesting or important, concerns about costs, and feeling afraid to know the results. Overall, our results suggest that engaging and educating the general population about the benefits of learning about an inherited cancer predisposition may be an important strategy to address recruitment barriers to PGS.

A research agenda to support the development and implementation of genomics-based clinical informatics tools and resources

OBJECTIVE

The Genomic Medicine Working Group of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research virtually hosted its 13th genomic medicine meeting titled "Developing a Clinical Genomic Informatics Research Agenda". The meeting's goal was to articulate a research strategy to develop Genomics-based Clinical Informatics Tools and Resources (GCIT) to improve the detection, treatment, and reporting of genetic disorders in clinical settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experts from government agencies, the private sector, and academia in genomic medicine and clinical informatics were invited to address the meeting's goals. Invitees were also asked to complete a survey to assess important considerations needed to develop a genomic-based clinical informatics research strategy.

RESULTS

Outcomes from the meeting included identifying short-term research needs, such as designing and implementing standards-based interfaces between laboratory information systems and electronic health records, as well as long-term projects, such as identifying and addressing barriers related to the establishment and implementation of genomic data exchange systems that, in turn, the research community could help address.

DISCUSSION

Discussions centered on identifying gaps and barriers that impede the use of GCIT in genomic medicine. Emergent themes from the meeting included developing an implementation science framework, defining a value proposition for all stakeholders, fostering engagement with patients and partners to develop applications under patient control, promoting the use of relevant clinical workflows in research, and lowering related barriers to regulatory processes. Another key theme was recognizing pervasive biases in data and information systems, algorithms, access, value, and knowledge repositories and identifying ways to resolve them.

Germline Pathogenic Variant Prevalence Among Latin American and US Hispanic Individuals Undergoing Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study

PURPOSE

To report on pathogenic germline variants detected among individuals undergoing genetic testing for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) from Latin America and compare them with self-reported Hispanic individuals from the United States.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, unrelated individuals with a personal/family history suggestive of HBOC who received clinician-ordered germline multigene sequencing were grouped according to the location of the ordering physician: group A, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean; group B, South America; and group C, United States with individuals who self-reported Hispanic ethnicity. Relatives who underwent cascade testing were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

Among 24,075 unrelated probands across all regions, most were female (94.9%) and reported a personal history suggestive of HBOC (range, 65.0%-80.6%); the mean age at testing was 49.1 ± 13.1 years. The average number of genes analyzed per patient was highest in group A (A 63 ± 28, B 56 ± 29, and C 40 ± 28). Between 9.1% and 18.7% of patients had pathogenic germline variants in HBOC genes (highest yield in group A), with the majority associated with high HBOC risk. Compared with US Hispanics individuals the overall yield was significantly higher in both Latin American regions (A v C P = 1.64×10-9, B v C P < 2.2×10-16). Rates of variants of uncertain significance were similar across all three regions (33.7%-42.6%). Cascade testing uptake was low in all regions (A 6.6%, B 4.5%, and C 1.9%).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the importance of multigene panel testing in Latin American individuals with newly diagnosed or history of HBOC, who can benefit from medical management changes including targeted therapies, eligibility to clinical trials, risk-reducing surgeries, surveillance and prevention of secondary malignancy, and genetic counseling and subsequent cascade testing of at-risk relatives.

Patient and Clinician Decision Support to Increase Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

To promote the identification of women carrying BRCA1/2 variants, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that primary care clinicians screen asymptomatic women for an increased risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 variant risk.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of patient and clinician decision support about BRCA1/2 genetic testing compared with standard education alone.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This clustered randomized clinical trial was conducted at an academic medical center including 67 clinicians (unit of randomization) and 187 patients. Patient eligibility criteria included women aged 21 to 75 years with no history of breast or ovarian cancer, no prior genetic counseling or testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), and meeting family history criteria for BRCA1/2 genetic testing.

INTERVENTIONS

RealRisks decision aid for patients and the Breast Cancer Risk Navigation Tool decision support for clinicians. Patients scheduled a visit with their clinician within 6 months of enrollment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was genetic counseling uptake at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were genetic testing uptake at 6 and 24 months, decision-making measures (perceived breast cancer risk, breast cancer worry, genetic testing knowledge, decision conflict) based upon patient surveys administered at baseline, 1 month, postclinic visit, and 6 months.

RESULTS

From December 2018 to February 2020, 187 evaluable patients (101 in the intervention group, 86 in the control group) were enrolled (mean [SD] age: 40.7 [13.2] years; 88 Hispanic patients [46.6%]; 15 non-Hispanic Black patients [8.1%]; 72 non-Hispanic White patients [38.9%]; 35 patients [18.9%] with high school education or less) and 164 (87.8%) completed the trial. There was no significant difference in genetic counseling uptake at 6 months between the intervention group (20 patients [19.8%]) and control group (10 patients [11.6%]; difference, 8.2 percentage points; OR, 1.88 [95% CI, 0.82-4.30]; P = .14). Genetic testing uptake within 6 months was also statistically nonsignificant (13 patients [12.9%] in the intervention group vs 7 patients [8.1%] in the control group; P = .31). At 24 months, genetic testing uptake was 31 patients (30.7%) in intervention vs 18 patients (20.9%) in control (P = .14). Comparing decision-making measures between groups at baseline to 6 months, there were significant decreases in perceived breast cancer risk and in breast cancer worry (standard mean differences = -0.48 and -0.40, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This randomized clinical trial did not find a significant increase in genetic counseling uptake among patients who received patient and clinician decision support vs those who received standard education, although more than one-third of the ethnically diverse women enrolled in the intervention underwent genetic counseling. These findings suggest that the main advantage for these high-risk women is the ability to opt for screening and preventive services to decrease their cancer risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03470402.

Prevalence of Americans reporting a family history of cancer indicative of increased cancer risk: Estimates from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey

The collection and evaluation of family health history in a clinical setting presents an opportunity to discuss cancer risk, tailor cancer screening recommendations, and identify people with an increased risk of carrying a pathogenic variant who may benefit from referral to genetic counseling and testing. National recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer screening indicate that men and women who have a first-degree relative affected with these types of cancers may benefit from talking to a healthcare provider about starting screening at an earlier age and other options for cancer prevention. The prevalence of reporting a first-degree relative who had cancer was assessed among adult respondents of the 2015 National Health Interview Survey who had never had cancer themselves (n = 27,999). We found 35.6% of adults reported having at least one first-degree relative with cancer at any site. Significant differences in reporting a family history of cancer were observed by sex, age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and census region. Nearly 5% of women under age 50 and 2.5% of adults under age 50 had at least one first-degree relative with breast cancer or colorectal cancer, respectively. We estimated that 5.8% of women had a family history of breast or ovarian cancer that may indicate increased genetic risk. A third of U.S. adults who have never had cancer report a family history of cancer in a first-degree relative. This finding underscores the importance of using family history to inform discussions about cancer risk and screening options between healthcare providers and their patients.

Utilizing Public Health Frameworks and Partnerships to Ensure Equity in DNA-Based Population Screening

DNA-Based population screening in the United States has the promise to improve the health of all people in all communities. We highlight recent DNA-based population screening examples at the state, local, and individual level. Key public health principles and concepts with a focus on equity appear to be lacking in current efforts. We request ‘A Call to Action’ that involves all partners in DNA-based population screening. Potential actions to consider include: a) identification and elimination of systemic barriers that result in health inequities in DNA-based population screening and follow-up; b) creation of a national multidisciplinary advisory committee with representation from underserved communities; c) revisiting well-described public health screening principles and frameworks to guide new screening decisions and initiatives; d) inclusion of the updated Ten Essential Public Health Services with equity at the core in efforts at the local, state and national level.

Understanding the Experience of Canadian Women Living with Ovarian Cancer through the Every Woman StudyTM

The Every Woman StudyTM: Canadian Edition is the most comprehensive study to date exploring patient-reported experiences of ovarian cancer (OC) on a national scale. An online survey conducted in Fall 2020 included individuals diagnosed with OC in Canada, reporting responses from 557 women from 11 Canadian provinces/territories. Median age at diagnosis was 54 (11−80), 61% were diagnosed between 2016−2020, 59% were stage III/IV and all subtypes of OC were represented. Overall, 23% had a family history of OC, 75% had genetic testing and 19% reported having a BRCA1/2 mutation. Most (87%) had symptoms prior to diagnosis. A timely diagnosis of OC (≤3 months from first presentation with symptoms) was predicted by age (>50) or abdominal pain/persistent bloating as the primary symptom. Predictors of an acute diagnosis (<1 month) included region, ER/urgent care doctor as first healthcare provider or stage III/IV disease. Regional differences in genetic testing, treatments and clinical trial participation were also noted. Respondents cited substantial physical, emotional, practical and financial impacts of an OC diagnosis. Our national survey has revealed differences in the pathway to diagnosis and post-diagnostic care among Canadian women with OC, with region, initial healthcare provider, specific symptoms and age playing key roles. We have identified many opportunities to improve both clinical and supportive care of OC patients across the country.

Genetic Testing for All: Overcoming Disparities in Ovarian Cancer Genetic Testing

Nearly 3% of the population carries genetic variants that lead to conditions that include hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. These pathogenic variants account for approximately 20% of ovarian cancer cases, and those with germline pathogenic variants have an odds ratio between 4 and 40 for developing ovarian cancer compared with noncarriers. Given the high prevalence of genetic variants, multiple organizations, including ASCO, recommend universal genetic counseling and testing for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Unfortunately, most individuals with a hereditary ovarian cancer syndrome are unaware of their underlying mutation, and racial and ethnic minority individuals as well as patients of low socioeconomic status experience disproportionate rates of underrecognition, leading to late and missed diagnoses. In this article, we review the current understanding of disparities in genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer, the role of population-based genetic testing, and innovative strategies to overcome the critical inequities present in current cancer genetic medicine. Underuse and disparities related to accessing recommended genetic services are complex and multifactorial, requiring improvements in processes related to provider identification, genetic counseling and testing referral, and patient uptake/adherence. Through the expansion of remote genetic counseling, offering online strategies for genetic testing, and reaching at-risk relatives through direct relative contact cascade testing and population-based genetic testing, there are a growing number of innovations in the field of genetic medicine, many of which emphasize health equity and offer promising alternatives to the current paradigm of genetic testing.

A Framework for Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Genetics and Genomics Research

IMPORTANCE

Research into the genetic and genomic ("genomics") foundations of disease is central to our understanding of disease prevention, early detection, diagnostic accuracy, and therapeutic intervention. Inequitable participation in genomics research by historically excluded populations limits the ability to translate genomic knowledge to achieve health equity and ensure that findings are generalizable to diverse populations.

OBSERVATIONS

We propose a novel framework for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in genomics research. Building on principles of community-based participatory research and collective impact frameworks, the framework can guide our understanding of the social, cultural, health system, policy, community, and individual contexts in which engagement and genomics research are being done. Our framework highlights the involvement of a multistakeholder team, including the participants and communities to be engaged, to ensure robust methods for recruitment, retention, return of genomic results, quality of engagement, follow-up, and monitoring of participants.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The proposed engagement framework will guide investigators in optimizing equitable representation in research and enhancing the rigor of genomics investigation.

Race and Site of Care Impact Treatment Delays in Older Women with Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Women ≥ 65 years of age are less likely to receive guideline-concordant breast cancer care. Given existing racial/ethnic disparities, older minority breast cancer patients may be especially prone to inequalities in care. How site of care impacts older breast cancer patients is not well defined. We sought to evaluate the association between race/ethnicity and breast cancer treatment delays in older women treated at minority-serving hospitals (MSHs) versus non-MSHs.

METHODS

Women ≥ 65 years of age treated for non-metastatic breast cancer were identified in the National Cancer Database (2010-2017). Treatment delay was defined as > 90 days from diagnosis to initial treatment. MSHs were defined as the top decile of hospitals serving predominantly Black or Hispanic patients. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics were used to determine the odds of treatment delay for women at MSHs versus non-MSHs across racial/ethnic groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 557,816 women were identified among 41 MSHs and 1146 non-MSHs. Average time to treatment was 33.71 days (standard deviation 26.92 days). Older women at MSHs were more likely to experience treatment delays than those at non-MSHs (odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.21-1.36). Regardless of where they received care, minorities were more likely to experience treatment delays than non-Hispanic White women.

CONCLUSIONS

Although 97% of older women treated at Commission on Cancer-accredited hospitals received timely breast cancer care, minorities and those treated at MSHs were more likely to experience treatment delays. Interventions addressing barriers to timely breast cancer care at MSHs may be an effective approach to reducing racial/ethnic disparities.

Do current family history-based genetic testing guidelines contribute to breast cancer health inequities?

Prior to the recommended age for population-based breast cancer screening by mammography, which ranges from 40−50 years depending on guidelines, the main way to identify higher risk women for earlier breast cancer (BC) screening to improve outcomes and discuss targeted chemoprevention is through specific clinical guidelines which are largely based on family history of breast cancer and known mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes. The annual percent change (APC) in early-onset BC continues to rise, with the higher early-onset cancer burden and mortality continuing to be seen in non-Hispanic black (NHB) women compared to non-Hispanic white (NHW) women. Coupled with the increasing incidence overall as well as the lower percent of BC family history reported in NHB women compared with that of NHW women means that continued reliance on guidelines to identify women for genetic screening and initiation of early BC screening based largely on family history could lead to even greater BC health inequities. The similarity in the prevalence of mutations in key BC susceptibility genes between NHB and NHW women contrasts sharply to the differences in age-specific incidence rates between NHB and NHW women, supporting that there must be environmental modifiers that are contributing to the increased incidence in NHB women. This reality further argues for identifying NHB women early in adulthood through genetic testing who may benefit from tailored BC risk-reduction programs and early BC screening.

Retrospective assessment of barriers and access to genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes in an integrated health care delivery system

Background

A critical step in access to genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes is referral for genetic counseling to assess personal and family risk. Individuals meeting testing guidelines have the greatest need to be evaluated. However, referrals to genetics are underutilized in US patients with hereditary cancer syndromes, especially within traditionally underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income, and non-English speaking patients.

Methods

We studied existing processes for referral to genetic evaluation and testing for hereditary cancer risk to identify areas of potential improvement in delivering these services, especially for traditionally underserved patients.

We conducted a retrospective review of 820 referrals to the Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) genetics department containing diagnosis codes for hereditary cancer risk. We classified referrals as high- or low-quality based on whether sufficient information was provided to determine if patients met national practice guidelines for testing. Through chart abstraction, we also assessed consistency with practice guidelines, whether the referral resulted in a visit to the genetics department for evaluation, and clinical characteristics of patients receiving genetic testing.

Results

Most referrals (n = 514, 63%) contained sufficient information to assess the appropriateness of referral; of those, 92% met practice guidelines for genetic testing. Half of referred patients (50%) were not offered genetic evaluation; only 31% received genetic testing. We identified several barriers to receiving genetic evaluation and testing, the biggest barrier being completion of a family history form sent to patients following the referral. Those with a referral consistent with testing guidelines, were more likely to receive genetic testing than those without (39% vs. 29%, respectively; p = 0.0058). Traditionally underserved patients were underrepresented in those receiving genetic evaluation and testing relative to the overall adult KPNW population.

Conclusions

Process improvements are needed to increase access to genetic services to diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes prior to development of cancer.

Impact of Health Perception and Knowledge on Genetic Testing Decisions Using the Health Belief Model

PURPOSE

Early detection of cancer risk is essential as it is associated with a higher chance of survival, more successful treatment, and improved quality of life. Genetic testing helps at-risk patients estimate the likelihood of developing cancer in a lifetime. This study aims to indentify the factors (perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits, and self-efficacy) that impact one's decision to take the genetic test.

METHODS

We examined the impacts of different factors of the health belief model on the engagement of patients in genetic testing using data from the National Cancer Institute's 2020 cross-sectional nationally representative data published in 2021. Complete surveys were answered by 3,865 participants (weighted population size = 253,815,197). All estimates were weighted to be nationally representative of the US population using the jackknife weighting method for parameter estimation. We used multivariable logistic regression to test our hypotheses for patients who have taken the genetic test for cancer risk detection. We adjusted the multivariate model for age, education, income, race, sex, cancer history, familial cancer history, and education.

RESULTS

We tested five hypotheses using the health belief model. Respondents who had genetic testing were more likely to rely on their health care providers and genetic counselors to make their decisions. Respondents who had genetic tests also reported less reliability on other sources than doctors: for the internet and social media (odds ratio = 0.33; P < .001) and for journals and magazines (odds ratio = 0.48; P = .007).

CONCLUSION

The findings show that patients generally rely on suggestions from their health care providers and counselors in genetic testing decisions. These findings also indicate that health care providers play a critical role in helping patients decide whether to use genetic testing to detect cancer risk in the early stages.

Healthcare Predictors of Information Dissemination About Genetic Risks

Objectives

Despite the benefits of genetic counseling and testing (GCT), utilization is particularly low among African American (AA) women who exhibit breast cancer features that are common in BRCA-associated cancer. Underutilization is especially problematic for AA women who are more likely to die from breast cancer than women from any other race or ethnicity. Due to medical mistrust, fear, and stigma that can be associated with genetic services among racial/ethnic minorities, reliance on trusted social networks may be an impactful strategy to increase dissemination of knowledge about hereditary cancer risk. Informed by the social cognitive theory, the purpose of this study is to determine: 1) which AA patients diagnosed with breast cancer and with identified hereditary risk are sharing information about hereditary risk with their networks; 2) the nature of the information dissemination; and 3) if personal GCT experiences is associated with dissemination of information about hereditary risk.

Methods

Among consented participants (n = 100) that completed an interview administered using a 202-item questionnaire consisting of open- and closed-ended questions, 62 patients were identified to be at higher risk for breast cancer. Descriptive statistics, bivariable chi-square, Pearson’s exact tests, and regression analyses were conducted to examine differences in characteristics between high-risk participants who disseminated hereditary risk information and participants who did not.

Results

Among high-risk participants, 25 (40%) indicated they had disseminated information about hereditary risk to at least one member in their family/friend network and 37 (60%) had not. Receipt of both provider recommendations and receipt of GCT services was associated with greater odds of disseminating information about hereditary risk with networks, OR = 4.53, 95%CI [1.33, 15.50], p = .02.

Conclusion

Interventions that increase self-efficacy gained through additional personalized knowledge and experience gained through provider recommendations and by undergoing GCT may facilitate information dissemination among social/familial networks.

Young Women with Breast Cancer in Resource-Limited Settings: What We Know and What We Need to Do Better

Young women with breast cancer (YWBC) account for a variable proportion of patients diagnosed with breast cancer around the globe, with a higher prevalence in resource-limited settings than in high-income countries. This group represents a unique population that warrants special attention due to specific biological considerations and age-specific supportive care issues. This review aims to explore existing knowledge regarding YWBC's needs, particularly in resource-restricted settings. To date, scarce information regarding the care of YWBC in resource-constrained countries is available, with most reports describing suboptimal care in terms of survivorship needs. Health care providers should implement actions to improve endocrine treatment adherence, referrals for fertility counseling and preservation, contraceptive use compliance, timely body image and sexual function interventions, comprehensive genetic risk assessments, and early quality of life and psychosocial health interventions. While high costs act as a barrier for optimal care in resource-limited settings, improving patient education represents a promising and cost-effective solution to improve patient care. Future research on developing tailored educational resources for YWBC in resource-limited settings should be considered a priority.

Genetic testing in Non-Hispanic Black women with breast cancer treated within an equal-access healthcare system

PURPOSE

Identification of women with hereditary forms of cancer allows for precision medicine approaches to improve survival. Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) women in the US general population are less likely to undergo genetic testing or utilize risk-reducing strategies. Whether these disparities exist within the equal-access US military healthcare system is not known.

METHODS

Genetic test information and surgical procedures were extracted for all NHB and Non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) with invasive breast cancer. National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria from the year of diagnosis were assessed for all patients. Data were analyzed using chi-square analysis with P < .05 defining significance.

RESULTS

NHB were significantly (P = .009) more likely to meet criteria for genetic testing compared to NHW, however, test uptake did not differ significantly between populations (P = .292). While 81% of both populations with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants elected for double mastectomy, NHW were two times more likely to undergo risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrate that when barriers, such as cost and lack of insurance, were removed, NHB were as willing to pursue testing as their NHW counterparts. Increasing the availability of testing and clinical management for NHB with hereditary forms of cancer may help reduce disparate survival seen in the US general population.

Disparities in Genetic Testing for Heritable Solid-Tumor Malignancies

Genetic testing offers providers a potentially life saving tool for identifying and intervening in high-risk individuals. However, disparities in receipt of genetic testing have been consistently demonstrated and undoubtedly have significant implications for the populations not receiving the standard of care. If correctly used, there is the potential for genetic testing to play a role in decreasing health disparities among individuals of different races and ethnicities. However, if genetic testing continues to revolutionize cancer care while being disproportionately distributed, it also has the potential to widen the existing mortality gap between various racial and ethnic populations.

Knowledge and perceptions of the genetic counseling profession among a national cross-sectional sample of U.S. adults

Awareness of the genetic counseling (GC) profession may influence access to genetic services, yet awareness among the U.S. population is unknown. A survey of U.S. adults was conducted using age- and sex-based quotas. Participants were asked if they had heard of the GC profession and to describe what genetic counselors (GCs) do. After reading a brief description of what GCs do, participants were asked the likelihood they would request to see a genetic counselor if they were concerned about a genetic condition. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the population, logistic regression to determine factors related to awareness of the GC profession, and ordinary least squares regression to identify which factors correlated with likelihood of seeking GC services. Thematic analysis was used to code open-ended responses. Among the final sample of 543, the majority were White individuals (79.7%) with an average age of 46.5 and median income between $60,000 and $69,999. Although 20% indicated they had heard of the GC profession, further analysis of the qualitative follow-up question suggested only 13.4% understood the role of GCs (CI 10.6%-16.3%). Factors positively and significantly correlated with knowledge of the GC profession included identifying as White or female and having higher educational attainment or higher science knowledge after controlling for income, age, and political views. Approximately 45% of respondents indicated they would likely or very likely seek GC if concerned about a genetic condition. Biological sex, age, religious affiliation, science knowledge, and awareness of the GC profession were significantly correlated with likelihood of seeking GC services while controlling for race, income, educational attainment, and political views. Curiosity/interest, the perception of benefits, and trust in GCs were all major themes that emerged to explain reasons for seeking an appointment with GCs. Lack of awareness, lack of perceived benefit, and lack of trust in GCs or greater trust in other healthcare providers were reasons for not wanting a GC appointment. Despite the 50-year existence of the GC profession, awareness remains low and negative attitudes exist.

Patient ethnicity and cascade genetic testing: a descriptive study of a publicly funded hereditary cancer program

Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer is highly accurate and cost-effective for identifying individuals at high risk for cancer; however, not all eligible people utilize this service. While sociodemographic factors related to the uptake of cascade genetic testing, such as age and sex, have been fairly well described in the literature, there is limited data available regarding patient ethnicity. We analyzed four years of testing data for this factor, as well as sex, age and genes tested. The patients were seen by the Hereditary Cancer Program of BC Cancer, which serves the entire population of British Columbia and Yukon, Canada. Patient ethnicity was compared to the 2016 Census data from the same region. Fisher's exact test was conducted to explore the cascade genetic testing uptakes. Chi-square test was used to compare the major ethnicity groups to Census data. There was significant variability in the uptake of cascade genetic testing in the three largest population groups (p < 0.05), with individuals of European ethnic origin overrepresented, individuals of Asian ethnic origin modestly underrepresented, and individuals of North American Indigenous origin considerably underrepresented for cascade genetic testing. The proportions represented compared to those expected from census data were significantly different for these three largest groups (p < 0.01). The majority of cascade genetic tests were for BRCA1/BRCA2 (58.8%), followed by 16.9% for Lynch syndrome genes. Most patients were female (70%), and the mean age of patients was 49 years old. This study provides further insight into uptake of cascade genetic testing by patient ethnicity. Examining patient ethnicity and cascade genetic testing rates helps to identify underserved populations. Our analysis highlights significant underrepresentation of North American Indigenous individuals for hereditary cancer cascade genetic testing, and helps recognize the need for development of culturally-safe alternatives to outreach and service promotion.

Achieving universal genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer: Are we there yet? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services.

METHODS

We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.

Utility and Diversity: Challenges for Genomic Medicine

Genomic information is poised to play an increasing role in clinical care, extending beyond highly penetrant genetic conditions to less penetrant genotypes and common disorders. But with this shift, the question of clinical utility becomes a major challenge. A collaborative effort is necessary to determine the information needed to evaluate different uses of genomic information and then acquire that information. Another challenge must also be addressed if that process is to provide equitable benefits: the lack of diversity of genomic data. Current genomic knowledge comes primarily from populations of European descent, which poses the risk that most of the human population will be shortchanged when health benefits of genomics emerge. These two challenges have defined my career as a geneticist and have taught me that solutions must start with dialogue across disciplinary and social divides.