Revisiting the Roles of Primary Care Clinicians in Genetic Medicine

Navigating the uncertainty of precision cancer screening: The role of shared decision-making

Objective

Describe how applying a shared decision making (SDM) lens to the implementation of new technologies can improve patient-centeredness.

Methods

This paper argues that the emergence of polygenic risk scores (PRS) for cancer screening presents an illustrative opportunity to include SDM when novel technologies enter clinical care.

Results

PRS are novel tools that indicate an individual's genetic risk of a given disease relative to the population. PRS are anticipated to help identify individuals most and least likely to benefit from screening. However, PRS have several types of uncertainty, including validity across populations, disparate computational methods, and inclusion of different genomic data across laboratories.

Conclusion

Implementing SDM alongside new technologies could prove useful for their ethical and patient-centered utilization. SDM's importance as an approach to decision-making will not diminish, as evidence, uncertainty, and patient values will remain intrinsic to the art and science of clinical care.

Innovation

SDM can help providers and patients navigate the considerable uncertainty inherent in implementing new technologies, enabling decision-making based on existing evidence and patient values.

Considerations in Methods and Timing for Delivery of Genetic Counseling Information to Pediatric Oncology Patients and Families

Many pediatric oncology patients and their families may benefit from genetic counseling and testing; however, identifying the best timing and delivery method for these referrals is sometimes a challenge. The goal of this study was to understand how and when caregivers prefer to receive information about genetic counseling and testing. A total of 56 surveys completed by caregivers at The Johns Hopkins Hospital Pediatric Oncology unit in Baltimore, Maryland were analyzed. A sizeable subset of respondents was interested in receiving information about the availability of genetic counseling from an oncology doctor or nurse, but not a genetic counselor (n=13/55, 24%). Most respondents preferred to be informed about genetic services at diagnosis (n=28/54, 52%) or within 1 to 2 months of diagnosis (n=14/54, 26%). In conclusion, patients and their families may benefit from prompt and early recognition of the risk of cancer predisposition syndromes, preferably within the first 2 months following diagnosis. Oncology professionals are an important source of information, and can introduce the availability of genetic counseling services and motivate families to undergo genetic testing, though alternative communication methods such as brochures may also be useful.

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.

Molecular Pathology Education: A Suggested Framework for Primary Care Resident Training in Genomic Medicine: A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology Training and Education Committee

Developments in genomics are profoundly influencing medical practice. With increasing use of genetic and genomic testing across every aspect of the health care continuum, patients and their families are increasingly turning to primary care physicians (PCPs) for discussion and advice regarding tests, implications, and results. Yet, with the rapid growth of information, technology, and applications, PCPs are finding it challenging to fill the gaps in knowledge and support the growing needs of their patients. A critical component in expanding PCP genomic literacy lies in the education of physicians in training and in practice. Although a framework for developing physician competencies in genomics has already been developed, the Association for Molecular Pathology is uniquely situated to actively utilize the skills of its members to engage and support PCPs in this effort. This report provides an overview and a suggested basic teaching framework, which can be used by molecular professionals in their individual institutions as a starting point for educational outreach.

Genetic Referral Patterns and Responses to Clinical Scenarios: A Survey of Primary Care Providers and Clinical Geneticists

Introduction:

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are considered the gatekeepers of genetic services, but they often underutilize or inappropriately utilize such services, leading to lack of early treatment, incorrect diagnoses, and unnecessary procedures. This study aims to delineate PCP referral patterns, including the frequency of, motivators for, and barriers to genetic referrals and testing in the present landscape of genomics.

Methods:

A 34-item online survey was distributed to PCPs in the United States (US). PCP demographics, practice characteristics, and referral patterns, motivators, and barriers were analyzed. Six hypothetical clinical scenarios included in the survey also were presented to a cohort of clinical geneticists. We calculated PCPs’ rates of ordering genetic tests and of referral to genetics services in the past year. Rates and responses to clinical scenarios were compared based on respondents’ personal and practice characteristics.

Results:

A total of 95 PCPs and 25 clinical geneticists participated. Among the PCPs, 79% reported referring and 50% reported ordering genetic testing in the last year. PCPs with genetic counselors (GCs) in their clinic referred at significantly higher rates than those without (P = .008). White PCPs referred at significantly higher rates compared to Black or African American PCPs (P = .009). The most commonly reported motivators for referring patients to genetic services were preference for specialist coordination, lack of knowledge, and family’s desire for risk information. The most commonly reported barriers were patient refusal, provider concerns about costs to patients, and uncertainty of when a genetic referral is appropriate. In response to clinical scenarios, clinical geneticists were in agreement about the need for genetic testing or referral for 2 of the scenarios. For these 2 scenarios, only 48% and 71% of PCPs indicated that they would offer genetic testing or referral, respectively.

Conclusions:

Responses to clinical scenarios suggest that it is not clear to PCPs when referrals or testing are needed. Collaboration with GCs is one approach to reducing barriers to and improving PCPs’ utilization of genetic services. Clear guidelines from clinical geneticists may help facilitate appropriate use of genetics services by PCPs. Additional research is needed to further describe barriers that PCPs face in genetic testing/referrals.

Modernizing family health history: achievable strategies to reduce implementation gaps

Family health history (FHH) is a valuable yet underused healthcare tool for assessing health risks for both prevalent disorders like diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases, and for rare, monogenic disorders. Full implementation of FHH collection and analysis in healthcare could improve both primary and secondary disease prevention for individuals and, through cascade testing, make at risk family members eligible for pre-symptomatic testing and preventative interventions. In addition to risk assessment in the clinic, FHH is increasingly important for interpreting clinical genetic testing results and for research connecting health risks to genomic variation. Despite this value, diverse implementation gaps in clinical settings undermine its potential clinical value and limit the quality of connected health and genomic data. The NHGRI Family Health History Group, an open-membership, US-based group with international members, believes that integrating FHH in healthcare and research is more important than ever, and that achievable implementation advances, including education, are urgently needed to boost the pace of translational utility in genomic medicine. An inventory of implementation gaps and proposed achievable strategies to address them, representing a consensus developed in meetings from 2019-2020, is presented here. The proposed measures are diverse, interdisciplinary, and are guided by experience and ongoing implementation and research efforts.

Democratizing genomics: Leveraging software to make genetics an integral part of routine care

Genetic testing can provide definitive molecular diagnoses and guide clinical management decisions from preconception through adulthood. Innovative solutions for scaling clinical genomics services are necessary if they are to transition from a niche specialty to a routine part of patient care. The expertise of specialists, like genetic counselors and medical geneticists, has traditionally been relied upon to facilitate testing and follow-up, and while ideal, this approach is limited in its ability to integrate genetics into primary care. As individuals, payors, and providers increasingly realize the value of genetics in mainstream medicine, several implementation challenges need to be overcome. These include electronic health record integration, patient and provider education, tools to stay abreast of guidelines, and simplification of the test ordering process. Currently, no single platform offers a holistic view of genetic testing that streamlines the entire process across specialties that begins with identifying at-risk patients in mainstream care settings, providing pretest education, facilitating consent and test ordering, and following up as a "genetic companion" for ongoing management. We describe our vision for using software that includes clinical-grade chatbots and decision support tools, with direct access to genetic counselors and pharmacists within a modular, integrated, end-to-end testing journey.