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

The breast cancer genetic testing experience: probing the potential utility of an online decision aid in risk perception and decision making

BACKGROUND

Despite the association of pathogenic variants (PVs) in cancer predisposition genes with significantly increased risk of breast cancer (BC), uptake of genetic testing (GT) remains low, especially among ethnic minorities. Our prior study identified that a patient decision aid, RealRisks, improved patient-reported outcomes (including worry and perceived risk) relative to standard educational materials. This study examined patients' GT experience and its influence on subsequent actions. We also sought to identify areas for improvement in RealRisks that would expand its focus from improved GT decision-making to understanding results.

METHODS

Women enrolled in the parent randomized controlled trial were recruited and interviewed. Demographic data was collected from surveys in the parent study. Interviews were conducted, transcribed, and coded to identify recurring themes. Descriptive statistics were generated to compare the interviewed subgroup to the original study cohort of 187 women.

RESULTS

Of the 22 women interviewed, 11 (50%) had positive GT results, 2 (9.1%) with a BRCA1/2 PV, and 9 (40.9%) with variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Median age was 40.5 years and 15 (71.4%) identified as non-Hispanic. Twenty (90.9%) reported a family history of BC, and 2 (9.1%) reported a family history of BRCA1/2 PV. The emerging themes included a preference for structured communication of GT results and the need for more actionable knowledge to mitigate BC risk, especially among patients with VUS or negative results. Few patients reported lifestyle changes following the return of their results, although they did understand that their behaviors can impact their BC risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients preferred a structured explanation of their GT results to facilitate a more personal testing experience. While most did not change lifestyle behaviors in response to their GT results, there was a consistent call for further guidance following the initial discussion of GT results. Empowering patients, especially those with negative or VUS results, with the context to internalize the implications of their results and form accurate risk perception represents a powerful opportunity to optimize subsequent risk management strategies. Informed by this study, future work will expand RealRisks to include the return of results and decision support to navigate concrete next steps.

Pilot study of a decision aid on BRCA1/2 genetic testing among Orthodox Jewish women

INTRODUCTION

Orthodox Jewish women face unique social, cultural, and religious factors that may influence uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing. We examined the impact of a web-based decision aid (DA) on BRCA1/2 genetic testing intention/completion among Orthodox Jewish women. We conducted a single-arm pilot study among 50 Orthodox Jewish women who were given access to a web-based DA entitled RealRisks and administered serial surveys at baseline and 1 and 6 months after exposure to the DA. Descriptive statistics were conducted for baseline characteristics and study measures. Comparisons were made to assess changes in study measures over time. Fifty Orthodox Jewish women enrolled in the study with a mean age of 43.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 14.6), 70% Modern Orthodox, 2% with personal history of breast cancer, and 68% and 16% with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, respectively. At baseline, 27 (54%) participants intended to complete genetic testing. Forty-three participants (86%) completed RealRisks and the 1-month survey and 38 (76%) completed the 6-month survey. There was a significant improvement in BRCA1/2 genetic testing knowledge and decrease in decisional conflict after exposure to the DA. At 1 month, only 20 (46.5%) completed or intended to complete genetic testing (p = 0.473 compared to baseline). While the DA improved genetic testing knowledge and reduced decisional conflict, genetic testing intention/completion did not increase over time. Future interventions should directly address barriers to BRCA1/2 genetic testing uptake and include input from leaders in the Orthodox Jewish community.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV ID

NCT03624088 (8/7/18).

Decision Support for Clinician Referral of Patients With Potential BRCA1/2 Mutations for Genetic Counseling: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial reports primary care clinician outcomes of decision support tools for referral of patients with potential BRCA1/2 mutations for genetic counseling.

Use of web-based decision support to improve informed choice for chemoprevention: a qualitative analysis of pre-implementation interviews (SWOG S1904)

BACKGROUND

Women with high-risk breast lesions, such as atypical hyperplasia (AH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), have a 4- to tenfold increased risk of breast cancer compared to women with non-proliferative breast disease. Despite high-quality data supporting chemoprevention, uptake remains low. Interventions are needed to break down barriers.

METHODS

The parent trial, MiCHOICE, is a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and implementation of patient and provider decision support tools to improve informed choice about chemoprevention among women with AH or LCIS. For this pre-implementation analysis, 25 providers participated in semi-structured interviews prior to accessing decision support tools. Interviews sought to understand attitudes/beliefs and barriers/facilitators to chemoprevention.

RESULTS

Interviews with 25 providers (18 physicians and 7 advanced practice providers) were included. Providers were predominantly female (84%), white (72%), and non-Hispanic (88%). Nearly all providers (96%) had prescribed chemoprevention for eligible patients. Three themes emerged in qualitative analysis. The first theme describes providers' confidence in chemoprevention and the utility of decision support tools. The second theme elucidates barriers to chemoprevention, including time constraints, risk communication and perceptions of patients' fear of side effects and anxiety. The third theme is the need for early implementation of decision support tools.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative study suggests that providers were interested in the early inclusion of decision aids (DA) in their chemoprevention discussion workflow. The DAs may help overcome certain barriers which were elucidated in these interviews, including patient level concerns about side effects, clinic time constraints and difficulty communicating risk. A multi-faceted intervention with a DA as one active component may be needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered with the NIH clinical trial registry, clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04496739.

Impact of personalized risk scores on shared decision making in left ventricular assist device implantation: Findings from a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To assess stakeholders' perspectives on integrating personalized risk scores (PRS) into left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation decisions and how these perspectives might impact shared decision making (SDM).

METHODS

We conducted 40 in-depth interviews with physicians, nurse coordinators, patients, and caregivers about integrating PRS into LVAD implantation decisions. A codebook was developed to identify thematic patterns, and quotations were consolidated for analysis. We used Thematic Content Analysis in MAXQDA software to identify themes by abstracting relevant quotes.

RESULTS

Clinicians had varying preferences regarding PRS integration into LVAD decision making, while patients and caregivers preferred real-time discussions about PRS with their physicians. Physicians voiced concerns about time constraints and suggested delegating PRS discussions to advanced practice providers or nurse coordinators.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating PRS information into LVAD decision aids presents both opportunities and challenges for SDM. Given variable preferences among clinicians and patients, clinicians should elicit patients' desired role in the decision-making process. Addressing time constraints and ensuring patient-centered care will be crucial for optimizing SDM. Practice implications Clinicians should elicit patient preferences for PRS information disclosure and address challenges, such as time constraints and delegation of PRS discussions to other team members.

Developing decision support tools for high-risk women and healthcare providers to increase chemoprevention informed choice and uptake: A retrospective translational science case study

Retrospective case studies are one approach to help identify processes underlying the translation of successful health interventions. This case study investigates the development of RealRisks and Breast Cancer Risk Navigation (BNAV), decision support tools for breast cancer risk assessment, and risk-stratified prevention. Following a recently developed protocol for retrospective translational science case studies, we examined the career trajectory of Dr Katherine Crew as she expanded from basic science to interdisciplinary, patient-oriented research in oncology and began collaboration with Dr Rita Kukafka, a public health informatician focused on communicating risk. Data collection methods included key informant interviews and examination of peer-reviewed publications, funded grants, and news articles associated with the research. Data were analyzed to identify key milestones in the development of RealRisks and BNAV and to elucidate facilitators and barriers to the translational process. Facilitators to translation included funding and infrastructure provided by a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA), the creation of an interdisciplinary team, and broad support from stakeholders including patient advocacy groups. Barriers to translation included limited mid-career support, ongoing costs for technology, and the time required to establish interdisciplinary, team science efforts. The findings reported here can be used to inform ongoing efforts to develop a more robust science of translation.

iKNOW-Supporting the counseling of women with hereditary risk of breast and ovarian cancer with digital technologies: A randomized controlled trial

Purpose

We developed the online-based counseling tool iKNOW for women with a pathogenic germline variant in BRCA1/2 to improve risk understanding and quality of life.

Methods

With a randomized controlled trial, we investigated the efficacy of iKNOW with regard to risk understanding (primary endpoint), quality of life, risk perception, and anxiety (secondary endpoints). Self-report questionnaires were administered to N = 217 women with a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2 before counseling (T0), immediately after (T1), 4 weeks after (T2), and 6 months after (T3).

Result

Deviations between self-assessed and calculated cancer risks tended to be smaller in the intervention group than in the control group but no longer significantly after adjustment for multiple testing. In the intervention group, the proportion of women with a correct understanding of breast cancer risk at T3 was higher (30.7% vs 14.7%; P = .032). There were no differences in secondary endpoints.

Conclusion

iKNOW tends to positively influence the understanding of familial cancer risk. At the same time, it does not negatively influence any of the secondary endpoints. However, converging evidence suggests that iKNOW seems to affect the quality of counseling processes and can thus be used as a paradigm for reinventing the notion of efficient, digital care.

Assessing interventions promoting the uptake of cancer-related genomic services within the Latino community: A scoping review using the RE-AIM framework

Cancer genomic services (CGS) can support genetic risk-stratified cancer prevention and treatment. Racial/ethnic minority groups are less likely to access and utilize CGS compared with non-Hispanic Whites. Little research has described characteristics of interventions targeted at CGS among Latinos. This scoping review aimed to (1) describe interventions promoting uptake of CGS among Latinos in the United States and Latin America, (2) describe intervention adaptations for Latino participants, and (3) summarize intervention implementation factors suggested by reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. We conducted a search in English and Spanish of literature published between 2005 and 2022 across PubMed and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases. Sixteen of 2344 papers met the inclusion criteria of the analysis. Efforts to promote CGS among Latino communities were limited in the US and lower in Latin America. This review highlights the need for in-depth exploration of acculturation-informed interventions and better reporting on implementation factors to enhance their scalability across diverse settings.

Risk-reducing decisions regarding germline BRCA pathogenic variant: focusing on the timing of genetic testing and RRSO

BACKGROUND

In Japan, the public insurance policy was revised in 2020 to cover hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), including genetic testing and surveillance, for patients with breast cancer (BC). Consequently, the demand for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) has increased. This study aimed to clarify the changes in the demand and timing of genetic testing and RRSO associated with public insurance coverage for HBOC in Japan.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 350 women with germline BRCA (gBRCA) pathogenic variants (PVs) who had visited gynaecologists; they received gBRCA genetic testing at 45.1±10.6 (20-74) years. The use of medical testing and preventive treatment was compared between the preinsurance and postinsurance groups using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that RRSO rates doubled from 31.4% to 62.6% among patients with gBRCA-PV. The implementation rate was 32.4% among unaffected carriers and 70.3% among BC-affected patients. Younger patients received genetic testing with significantly shorter intervals between BC diagnosis and genetic testing and between genetic testing and RRSO.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the insurance coverage for HBOC patients with BC has increased the frequency of RRSO in Japan. However, a comparison between the number of probands and family members indicated that the diagnosis among family members is inadequate. The inequality in the use of genetic services by socioeconomic groups is an issue of further concern.

Understanding Social, Cultural, and Religious Factors Influencing Medical Decision-Making on BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing in the Orthodox Jewish Community

INTRODUCTION

Although the prevalence of a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is about 1:400 (0.25%) in the general population, the prevalence is as high as 1:40 (2.5%) among the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Despite cost-effective preventive measures for mutation carriers, Orthodox Jews constitute a cultural and religious group that requires different approaches to BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing relative to other groups. This study analyzed a dialog of key stakeholders and community members to explore factors that influence decision-making about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing in the New York Orthodox Jewish community.

METHODS

Qualitative research methods, based on Grounded Theory and Narrative Research, were utilized to analyze the narrative data collected from 49 key stakeholders and community members. A content analysis was conducted to identify themes; inter-rater reliability was 71%.

RESULTS

Facilitators of genetic testing were a desire for preventive interventions and education, while barriers to genetic testing included negative emotions, feared impact on family/romantic relationships, cost, and stigma. Views differed on the role of religious leaders and healthcare professionals in medical decision-making. Education, health, and community were discussed as influential factors, and concerns were expressed about disclosure, implementation, and information needs.

CONCLUSION

This study elicited the opinions of Orthodox Jewish women (decision-makers) and key stakeholders (influencers) who play critical roles in the medical decision-making process. The findings have broad implications for engaging community stakeholders within faith-based or culturally distinct groups to ensure better utilization of healthcare services for cancer screening and prevention designed to improve population health.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States

Introduction. Personalized web-based clinical decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening could address knowledge gaps, enhance patient autonomy in shared decision-making, and promote equitable care. The purpose of this review was to present evidence on the availability, usability, feasibility, acceptability, quality, and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools to support their integration into clinical care. Methods. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist to conduct this review. We searched 6 databases to identify literature on the development, validation, usability, feasibility, acceptability testing, and uptake of the tools into practice settings. Quality assessment for each tool was conducted using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument, with quality scores ranging from 0 to 63 (lowest-highest). Results. We identified 10 tools for breast cancer prevention and 9 tools for screening. The tools included individual (e.g., age), clinical (e.g., genomic risk factors), and health behavior (e.g., alcohol use) characteristics. Fourteen tools included race/ethnicity, but no tool incorporated contextual factors (e.g., insurance, access) associated with breast cancer. All tools were internally or externally validated. Six tools had undergone usability testing in samples including White (median, 71%; range, 9%-96%), insured (99%; 97%-100%) women, with college education or higher (60%; 27%-100%). All of the tools were developed and tested in academic settings. Seven (37%) tools showed potential evidence of uptake in clinical practice. The tools had an average quality assessment score of 21 (range, 9-39). Conclusions. There is limited evidence on testing and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools in diverse clinical settings. The development, testing, and integration of tools in academic and nonacademic settings could potentially improve uptake and equitable access to these tools.

Highlights

There were 19 personalized, interactive, Web-based decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening.Breast cancer outcomes were personalized based on individual clinical characteristics (e.g., age, medical history), genomic risk factors (e.g., BRCA1/2), race and ethnicity, and health behaviors (e.g., smoking). The tools did not include contextual factors (e.g., insurance status, access to screening facilities) that could potentially contribute to breast cancer outcomes.Validation, usability, acceptability, and feasibility testing were conducted mostly among White and/or insured patients with some college education (or higher) in academic settings. There was limited evidence on testing and uptake of the tools in nonacademic clinical settings.

Protocol to evaluate sequential electronic health record-based strategies to increase genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk across diverse patient populations in gynecology practices

BACKGROUND

Germline genetic testing is recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for individuals including, but not limited to, those with a personal history of ovarian cancer, young-onset (< 50 years) breast cancer, and a family history of ovarian cancer or male breast cancer. Genetic testing is underused overall, and rates are consistently lower among Black and Hispanic populations. Behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies, or nudges, directed towards patients and clinicians may increase the use of this evidence-based clinical practice.

METHODS

Patients meeting eligibility for germline genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer will be identified using electronic phenotyping algorithms. A pragmatic cohort study will test three sequential strategies to promote genetic testing, two directed at patients and one directed at clinicians, deployed in the electronic health record (EHR) for patients in OB-GYN clinics across a diverse academic medical center. We will use rapid cycle approaches informed by relevant clinician and patient experiences, health equity, and behavioral economics to optimize and de-risk our strategies and methods before trial initiation. Step 1 will send patients messages through the health system patient portal. For non-responders, step 2 will reach out to patients via text message. For non-responders, Step 3 will contact patients' clinicians using a novel "pend and send" tool in the EHR. The primary implementation outcome is engagement with germline genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition, defined as a scheduled genetic counseling appointment. Patient data collected through the EHR (e.g., race/ethnicity, geocoded address) will be examined as moderators of the impact of the strategies.

DISCUSSION

This study will be one of the first to sequentially examine the effects of patient- and clinician-directed strategies informed by behavioral economics on engagement with breast and ovarian cancer genetic testing. The pragmatic and sequential design will facilitate a large and diverse patient sample, allow for the assessment of incremental gains from different implementation strategies, and permit the assessment of moderators of strategy effectiveness. The findings may help determine the impact of low-cost, highly transportable implementation strategies that can be integrated into healthcare systems to improve the use of genomic medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT05721326. Registered February 10, 2023. https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/study/NCT05721326.

Remotely Delivered Cancer Genetic Testing in the Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) Trial: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Requiring personalized genetic counseling may introduce barriers to cancer risk assessment, but it is unknown whether omitting counseling could increase distress.

Objective

To assess whether omitting pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling would increase distress during remote testing.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) was a 4-arm, randomized noninferiority trial testing the effects of individualized pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling on participant distress 3 and 12 months posttest. Participants were recruited via social and traditional media, and enrollment occurred between April 27, 2017, and September 29, 2020. Participants were women aged 30 years or older, English-speaking, US residents, and had access to the internet and a health care professional. Previous cancer genetic testing or counseling was exclusionary. In the family history cohort, participants had a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. In the familial pathogenic variant (PV) cohort, participants reported 1 biological relative with a PV in an actionable cancer susceptibility gene. Data analysis was performed between December 13, 2020, and May 31, 2023.

Intervention

Participants completed baseline questionnaires, watched an educational video, and were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: the control arm with pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling, or 1 of 3 study arms without pretest and posttest counseling. Genetic counseling was provided by phone appointments and testing was done using home-delivered saliva kits.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was participant distress measured by the Impact of Event Scale 3 months after receiving the results. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing, anxiety, depression, and decisional regret.

Results

A total of 3839 women (median age, 44 years [range 22-91 years]), most of whom were non-Hispanic White and college educated, were randomized, 3125 in the family history and 714 in the familial PV cohorts. In the primary analysis in the family history cohort, all experimental arms were noninferior for distress at 3 months. There were no statistically significant differences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret at 3 months. The highest completion rates were seen in the 2 arms without pretest counseling.

Conclusions and Relevance

In the MAGENTA clinical trial, omitting individualized pretest counseling for all participants and posttest counseling for those without PV during remote genetic testing was not inferior with regard to posttest distress, providing an alternative care model for genetic risk assessment.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02993068.

Systematic Review for Survey Instruments to Measure Cultural Identification of Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and Filipinos

Numerous studies have used survey instruments to measure the degree of cultural identity/identification for a racial group to examine how they identify with their heritage or cultural group. However, only a few systematic reviews have summarized the survey instruments for Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and Filipinos. This systematic review aimed to summarize reliable and validated survey instruments that assessed the cultural identity/identification of Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and Filipinos in 3 steps: (1) identifying studies that meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria; (2) evaluating the psychometric properties of the instrument with reported validity and reliability test results; and (3) summarizing the selected studies. A search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments databases for published articles related to the cultural identification for the 3 racial groups. Sixteen unique articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria: 7 for Filipinos, 3 for Native Hawaiians, 1 for Pacific Islanders, 2 for Asian Americans, and 3 for non-specific Indigenous people. Three reviewers assessed the psychometric properties of the 16 articles using the pre-determined criteria and summarized the survey instruments and study outcomes. All the selected articles discussed their survey instrument's validity. This review can serve as a resource for researchers who want to apply a culturally tailored survey instrument for Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and Filipinos in their research studies.

Association between wine consumption and cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Alcohol consumption is related to the risk of developing different types of cancer. However, unlike other alcoholic beverages, moderate wine drinking has demonstrated a protective effect on the risk of developing several types of cancer.

Objective

To analyze the association between wine consumption and the risk of developing cancer.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE (through PubMed), Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis. Pooled relative risks (RRs) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird methods. I2 was used to evaluate inconsistency, the τ2 test was used to assess heterogeneity, and The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale were applied to evaluate the risk of bias. This study was previously registered in PROSPERO, with the registration number CRD42022315864.

Results

Seventy-three studies were included in the systematic review, and 26 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled RR for the effect of wine consumption on the risk of gynecological cancers was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.08), that for colorectal cancer was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.03), and that for renal cancer was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.04). In general, the heterogeneity was substantial.

Conclusion

The study findings reveal no association between wine consumption and the risk of developing any type of cancer. Moreover, wine drinking demonstrated a protective trend regarding the risk of developing pancreatic, skin, lung, and brain cancer as well as cancer in general.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022315864, identifier CRD42022315864 (PROSPERO).

A Community Health Worker Model to Support Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment and Genetic Testing

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of a community health worker-supported hereditary cancer risk-assessment and genetic testing program in a safety-net hospital serving more than 70% medically underserved patients.

METHODS

This community health worker pilot program began in January 2020 at women's health clinics by administering original National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-based questionnaires. Patients meeting high-risk criteria were offered video-based genetic education and testing, notified of results using telehealth, and offered indicated counseling. We compared the rate of genetic counseling and testing in the first 18 months of the pilot program with that in the prior 18 months.

RESULTS

In the first 18 months of the pilot program, 940 patients were screened through the community health worker program: 196 were identified as high-risk, 103 patients were tested, and pathogenic variants were identified in 10 (9.7%), two of whom had a personal cancer history. In addition, 73 patients were tested per usual practice by a certified genetic counselor: pathogenic variants were identified in 16 (21.9%), 11 (68.8%) of whom had a personal cancer history. In the 18 months before the program, 68 patients underwent genetic testing with a certified genetic counselor, pathogenic variants were identified in 16 (23.5%), 13 (81.3%) of whom had a personal cancer history. The community health worker program led to a significant increase in testing among unaffected patients based on family history alone (odds ratio [OR] 7.0; 95% CI 3.7-13.2; P <.001), paralleled by a respective significant increase in the identification of pathogenic variants (OR 4.33; 95% CI 1.0-18.9; P =.051).

CONCLUSION

This pilot program demonstrates the feasibility of a community health worker-supported program, using self-administered questionnaires and telehealth-based genetic services in a primarily medically underserved population. This program improved the detection of unaffected high-risk patients based on family history, increasing the volume of tests performed for this indication. Programs of this type may improve family history-based hereditary cancer testing in medically underserved patients, further enabling cancer-prevention strategies.

An overview of the research progress of BRCA gene mutations in breast cancer

The breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) is an important tumor suppressor gene, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, a biomarker that assesses the risk of breast cancer and influences a patient's individualized treatment options. BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm) increases the risk of breast cancer. However, breast-conserving surgery is still an option for BRCAm, and prophylactic mastectomy and nipple-sparing mastectomy may also reduce the risk of breast cancer. BRCAm is sensitive to Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy due to specific types of DNA repair defects, and its combination with other DNA damage pathway inhibitors and endocrine therapy and immunotherapy are also used for the treatment of BRCAm breast cancer. The current treatment and research progress of BRCA1/2 mutant breast cancer in this review provides a basis for the individualized treatment of patients with this type of breast cancer.