Knowledge and opinions regarding BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing among primary care physicians

iKNOWgynetics - A web-based learning concept to empower primary care gynecologists to participate in the care of patients with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer

Familial cancer burden and genetics play an increasingly important role in the early detection and prevention of gynecological cancers. However, people with hereditary cancer risks are often identified late when they already have cancer. We aimed at developing and evaluating a training concept for primary care gynecologists-iKNOWgynetics-to improve their knowledge and awareness of genetic cancer syndromes and their ability to identify patients with increased familial cancer risks based on up-to-date evidence and current guidelines (in Germany, primary care includes all doctors treating patients on an outpatient basis without a clear separation of the expertise of the doctor or of their specialty). Starting off with a needs assessment among primary care gynecologists, we developed and evaluated an online training concept-using a web-based learning platform in combination with a live virtual seminar-to convey practice-relevant knowledge about familial cancer. After registration, participants get access to the web-based learning platform (www.iknowgynetics.de) to prepare for the virtual seminars and to use it as online reference to re-access the contents after the training. Evaluation included multiple-choice (MC) questions on knowledge and participants' self-efficacy to implement the acquired knowledge, which were administered in a pre-post design. Of 109 participants, 103 (94.5%) filled out pre- and post-questionnaires. Eighty-five participants were gynecologists in primary care from Berlin (81.2%) and Brandenburg (18.8%) and had an average of 24.1 years (SD = 8.5 years) of professional experience. After the training, participants answered significantly more knowledge questions correctly (M = 15.2 of 17, SD = 1.3) than before (M = 13.8 of 17, SD = 1.7) (p < 0.01) and felt more confident to be able to apply referral criteria for specialized counseling in practice (p < 0.001). The online-based training iKNOWgynetics considers the busy schedule of primary care gynecologists and supports them in acquiring practice-relevant information on familial cancer risks and on how to identify healthy persons at risk, which may ultimately help to improve the prevention of gynecological cancers. In future studies, the reported concept could be transferred to other entities.

Efficacy of implementing a BRCA screening protocol in primary care

ABSTRACT

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death for women, whereas ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecological cancer. Breast cancer gene 1 ( BRCA1 ) and breast cancer gene 2 ( BRCA2 ) mutations can increase the risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Screening can assist in prevention and early detection. This study aimed to increase provider knowledge of BRCA mutations, the use of BRCA screening tools, and genetic referrals. An Institutional Review Board-approved study was implemented for providers for training on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and the importance of screening and referral for those at risk. Measures included provider confidence and knowledge after training as well as number of patient referrals. A standardized webinar was required with further education provided in multiple modalities. The number of BRCA screenings and referrals for genetic screening was monitored through the electronic health record (EHR). Eight providers including five nurse practitioners and three medical doctors participated in the complete project. As a result, 56 patients were BRCA screened, and four referrals were made to receive genetic counseling. Education enhanced knowledge, increased screening tool use, and resulted in improvement in genetic referrals through the EHR.

Assessment of medical knowledge toward genetic testing for individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome in Brazil

Genetic testing has become increasingly used in medical practice to enable genetic cancer risk assessment. In Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer syndrome (HBOC), it can be used to screen pathogenic germline variants. The access to early diagnosis, from the request until the proper interpretation of genetic tests depends on medical knowledge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge of family physicians, oncologists, geneticists and gynecologists regarding genetic testing for patients with suspected HBOC in Brazil. A cross-sectional survey of physicians was performed using a self-administered questionnaire. One hundred and ninety-two physicians answered the questionnaire (23 were geneticists, 38 gynecologists, 39 family physicians, and 92 oncologists). Only 15.4% of family physicians and 26% of gynecologists feel prepared to order genetic testing for patients with personal and/or family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Even though 87% of the oncologists have genetic testing available in their clinical practice, only 51.1% consider they have sufficient knowledge to manage patients after detecting a pathogenic germline variant and 17.4% do not feel comfortable interpreting them. Most oncologists and geneticists are very knowledgeable about recommendations for genetic testing order and management of HBOC patients. On the other hand, gynecologists and family physicians order genetic testing less frequently (28.9% and 7.7%, respectively) and have difficulties interpreting (26.3% and 2.3%, respectively) and managing these patients. These observations raise important issues regarding the implementation of genetic testing in Brazil, including the development of training programs for physicians from different specialties.

Missed opportunities in the real-world genetic testing in BRCA gene variant carriers with cancers meeting NCCN criteria

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of patients meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)'s BRCA genetic testing criteria prior to a diagnosis of a BRCA-related cancer.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of patients with BRCA pathogenic variants and a diagnosis of a BRCA-related cancer. Patients were included if they had known dates of genetic testing and cancer diagnosis. NCCN criteria (version 2.2021) were applied to determine if patients met criteria for testing before a BRCA-related cancer diagnosis. The outcome of interest was the proportion of patients undergoing genetic testing following a diagnosis of a BRCA-related cancer who qualified for genetic testing based on NCCN criteria. Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression were performed with significance at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of 270 patients with a BRCA-related cancer, 229 (85%) underwent genetic testing after a cancer diagnosis. Most patients (97%) met at least one NCCN criteria for BRCA testing; 166 (73%) of patients who were tested following a BRCA-related cancer diagnosis also met the criteria for testing by family history. Publicly insured or uninsured patients were three times more likely to undergo BRCA testing after a diagnosis of cancer (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-8.40). Patients with a family history of pathogenic variants were more likely to undergo testing before a cancer diagnosis (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05-0.23).

CONCLUSION

Most patients with BRCA-associated cancers undergo genetic testing after their cancer diagnosis. Increased education on genetic testing criteria and novel methods to improve testing are desperately needed.

Critical components of genomic medicine practice for non-genetics healthcare professionals: Genetic counselors' perspectives and implications for medical education

Genetic services are increasingly provided by non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) with minimal formal training in genetics/genomics. Research demonstrates gaps in knowledge and clinical practices in genetics/genomics among NGHPs, but there is a lack of consensus on the specific knowledge needed by NGHPs to effectively provide genetic services. As clinical genetics professionals, genetic counselors (GCs) have insight into the critical components of genetics/genomics knowledge and practices needed by NGHPs. This study explored GCs' beliefs regarding whether NGHPs should provide genetic services and identified GCs' perceptions of the components of knowledge and clinical practice in genetics/genomics that are most critical for NGHPs providing genetic services. Two hundred and forty GCs completed an online quantitative survey with 17 participating in a follow-up qualitative interview. Descriptive statistics and cross-comparisons were generated for survey data. Interview data were analyzed using an inductive qualitative method for cross-case analysis. Most GCs disagreed with NGHPs providing genetic services, but beliefs varied widely, ranging from disagreement due to perceived gaps in knowledge or clinical skills to acceptance of NGHPs providing genetic services due to limited access to genetics professionals. Across survey and interview data, GCs endorsed the interpretation of genetic test results, understanding implications of results, collaboration with genetics professionals, knowledge of the risks and benefits to testing, and recognizing indications for genetic testing as critical components of knowledge and clinical practice for NGHPs. Several recommendations for improving the provision of genetic services were provided by respondents including educating NGHPs to provide genetic services through case-based continuing medical education and increasing collaboration between NGHPs and genetics professionals. As GCs are healthcare providers with experience and vested interests in educating NGHPs, their perspectives can help inform the creation of continuing medical education to ensure patients' access to high-quality genomic medicine care from providers of varying backgrounds.

Identification of individuals at high-risk for pancreatic cancer using a digital patient-input tool combining family cancer history screening and new-onset diabetes

Capturing family history might be a valuable tool for identification of individuals at increased risk of pancreatic cancer, which would allow enrollment into pancreatic surveillance programs. In addition, weight loss and concurrent new-onset diabetes may be utilized as an early marker for pancreatic cancer. This study evaluates the yield of combining family history and the Enriching New-Onset Diabetes for Pancreatic Cancer (ENDPAC) model to identify individuals who could benefit from pancreatic surveillance. A novel questionnaire and digital input tool was created that combined questions on family cancer history and criteria of the ENDPAC model. Individuals meeting ENDPAC criteria were enrolled directly in the high-risk pancreatic clinic. Individuals who met the criteria for a significant family history of cancer were offered referral to a genetic counselor. The questionnaire was completed by 453 patients. Of those, 25.8% (117/453) had significant familial risk factors. Eighteen individuals (15.4%) completed genetic testing previously, of whom five had a pathogenic variant. Thirty-four (29.9%) out of 117 individuals with a strong family history - flagged by the questionnaire - underwent genetic testing. Four (11.8%) of these patients harbored a pathogenic variant. Additionally, through cascade family testing, two siblings were found to carry pathogenic variants. Four (0.9%) of the 453 patients matched ENDPAC criteria. Two were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and the others were enrolled in the surveillance program. In conclusion, identification of high-risk individuals for pancreatic cancer can be achieved by combining family history screening and the ENDPAC model to facilitate referral to genetic counseling and high-risk clinics.

Physicians' experience, practice and education, on genetic testing and genetic counseling: a nationwide survey study in Greece

Genetic testing has been implemented in clinical practice. However, data on physician's practices and education related to cancer genetics, risk assessment and clinical management in Greece, is limited. In Greece, genetic counseling is performed by treating physicians in collaboration with clinical laboratory geneticists due to the absence of medical geneticists and genetic counsellors. We evaluated treating physicians' experience on genetic testing for hereditary cancer and counseling practices in Greece, thus providing critical areas for improvement of genetic counseling processes. A 28-question survey was used to assess physicians' experience with genetic testing practices, factors that affect their clinical management and decision making and limitations in their education. Of 250 physicians, 208 (83%) completed the survey; of whom 89 (42.8%) were medical oncologists, 88 general surgeons (42.3%), 26 gynecologists (12.5%) and 5 (2.4%) of other specialties. Overall, 91.8% of participants referred patients for genetic testing, with 51.8% recommending multigene panel testing. While most clinicians (84%) reported lack of a clinical genetics department at their institution, 75.7% referred patients for genetic counseling at available departments or healthcare professionals with expertise in genetic counseling. Overall, 68.8% of respondents reported no training or moderate training on cancer genetics. A higher proportion of medical oncologists reported sufficient/very satisfactory training (40.9%) compared to general surgeons (27.3%) or gynecologists (11.5%) (p = 0.012). Time spent on pre- and post-testing sessions varied significantly among respondents. Of 199 physicians, 70% would manage patients with BRCA1 VUS as patients with pathogenic variants, mainly surgeons (83.1%) and gynecologists (80%), compared to oncologists (52.3%) (p < 0.001). Additionally, 64% of physicians treating patients with breast and ovarian cancer would recommend an intervention based on the presence of a BRCA1 VUS. Most respondents (87%) were interested in receiving additional education on cancer risk assessment. Limited consensus was observed during physicians' genetic testing, counseling practices and clinical management of patients with increased predisposition to cancer. Our findings highlight the need for improvement in physician education on cancer risk assessment and increase of genetic counseling resources and services.

Integrating hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic counselling and testing into mainstream clinical practice: Legal and ethical challenges

Health professionals not specialized in genetics are expected to take an increasing role in genetic services delivery. This article aims to identify legal and ethical challenges related to a collaborative oncogenetics service model, where non-genetic health professionals provide genetic services to patients. Through a scoping literature review, we identified issues to the provision of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or other hereditary adult cancers, genetic testing under this model. Concerns that arose in the literature were informed consent, lack of adherence to best practice guidelines, lack of education of non-genetic health professionals on the provision of genetic services, psychological impacts of genetic testing, continuity of care, the complexity of genetic test results, confidentiality, risks of medical mismanagement, and the associated medical responsibility liabilities. Despite these challenges, there is a growing consensus towards the feasibility of cancer genetic testing being undertaken by non-genetic healthcare professionals in a collaborative oncogenetics service model.

Making BRCA1 genetic test reports easier to understand through user-centered design: A randomized trial

PURPOSE

Our objective was to apply a user-centered design process to identify phrases, graphics, and ways of communicating numerical risks that could be used to help patients understand their cancer risk and next steps on receiving BRCA1 genetic test results (positive, negative, and variants of uncertain significance).

METHODS

The first phase of the study, a user-centered design process, consisted of 4 rounds of interviews (N = 42, including 13 health care professionals and 16 patients having undergone BRCA testing). The second was a randomized, between-participants experimental study of 456 United Kingdom residents that compared the resulting reports to reports used in a United Kingdom national genomic laboratory hub. Outcomes were subjective and objective comprehension, communication efficacy, actionability, and perceived risk.

RESULTS

Subjective comprehension, communication efficacy, and actionability were all higher for the user-centered reports, with no difference in perceived risk. Comprehension of participants viewing user-centered reports was significantly better on 2 items, directionally (but not significantly) better on 6 items, and directionally (but not significantly) worse on 2 items.

CONCLUSION

Our results imply that user-centered design is a promising approach for developing materials about complex genetic risks. We suggest wordings that are likely to lead to improved comprehension when communicating BRCA-associated risks.

Attitudes and training needs of oncologists and surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in a low-to-middle income Asian country

With the advent of poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapies, the focus of genetic testing for breast, ovarian, and other cancers has shifted from risk management to treatment decision-making in high-resource settings. Due to the shortage of genetic counselors worldwide, alternative ways of delivering genetic counseling have been explored, including training nongenetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) to provide genetic counseling. However, little is known about the feasibility of adopting such models in healthcare settings with insufficient specialists, where population health literacy is low and where access to new therapies may be limited. In this study, we evaluated the attitudes, considerations, and self-efficacy of oncologists, breast surgeons, and general surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country with a universal healthcare system. We developed a 32-item survey via a modified Delphi method, which was then distributed via a purposive and network sampling approach. While 77% of respondents expressed interest in providing breast cancer genetic counseling, 85% preferred to refer patients directly to genetic services for genetic counseling and testing. The main considerations for mainstreaming were the cost of genetic testing and PARPi therapy, as well as the availability of support from genetics professionals. Respondents reported a lack of confidence in communicating genetic risk, particularly to patients with poor health literacy, and in the clinical management of patients with variants of uncertain significance. Our results highlight the urgent need to train more NGHPs in providing genetic counseling and testing in low-to-middle income countries, and suggest that the mainstay for genetic counseling in this setting may be for risk management rather than access to PARPi therapy.

Education and Training of Non-Genetics Providers on the Return of Genome Sequencing Results in a NICU Setting

To meet current and expected future demand for genome sequencing in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), adjustments to traditional service delivery models are necessary. Effective programs for the training of non-genetics providers (NGPs) may address the known barriers to providing genetic services including limited genetics knowledge and lack of confidence. The SouthSeq project aims to use genome sequencing to make genomic diagnoses in the neonatal period and evaluate a scalable approach to delivering genome sequencing results to populations with limited access to genetics professionals. Thirty-three SouthSeq NGPs participated in a live, interactive training intervention and completed surveys before and after participation. Here, we describe the protocol for the provider training intervention utilized in the SouthSeq study and the associated impact on NGP knowledge and confidence in reviewing, interpreting, and using genome sequencing results. Participation in the live training intervention led to an increased level of confidence in critical skills needed for real-world implementation of genome sequencing. Providers reported a significant increase in confidence level in their ability to review, understand, and use genome sequencing result reports to guide patient care. Reported barriers to implementation of genome sequencing in a NICU setting included test cost, lack of insurance coverage, and turn around time. As implementation of genome sequencing in this setting progresses, effective education of NGPs is critical to provide access to high-quality and timely genomic medicine care.

Primary Care Providers' Use of Genetic Services in the Southeast United States: Barriers, Facilitators, and Strategies

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Collectively, genetic diseases are not that rare, and with increasing availability of genetics-informed healthcare management, primary care providers (PCPs) are more often asked to screen for or provide genetic services. Previous studies have identified barriers that impact PCPs' ability to provide genetic services, including limited knowledge, training, and time/resources. This study set out to identify specific barriers limiting genetics service provision by PCPs within the Southeastern Regional Genetics Network (SERN) and resources that would help eliminate those barriers.

METHODS

PCPs were recruited through provider networks and invited to participate in semi-structured interviews, conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were independently coded by 2 coders using MAXQDA software. Thematic analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Eleven interviews were conducted. Three predominant themes emerged from the data regarding factors impacting use of genetic services: system-wide factors, provider-specific factors, and patient factors. System-wide barriers included a lack of genetics providers and logistic challenges, which led to some PCPs coordinating referrals with other specialists or independently managing patients. Regarding provider-specific barriers, PCPs reported lack of genetics knowledge making referrals challenging. When possible, many PCPs contacted genetics providers for assistance. When not possible, some PCPs reached out to other colleagues or specialists for guidance. Patient-specific barriers included concerns or lack of information regarding genetics and unmet social needs. Many PCPs provided additional education regarding genetics appointments or testing benefits to their patients. Assistance from genetic counselors, electronic medical record systems that support referral to genetics, prior experience referring to genetics, established communication channels with genetics professionals, and highly motivated patients all facilitated improved collaboration with genetic services. PCPs provided suggestions for future resources to support interactions with genetics, including clear referral guidelines, increased access to genetics providers, improved test ordering processes, increased access to genetic education, and communication systems.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs face barriers at 3 different levels when engaging with genetic services: systems, providers, and patients. This study identified strategies that PCPs use to address these barriers, which are dependent on individual resources and practice settings. These strategies demonstrate resourcefulness in working to incorporate genetics into clinics operating at maximum capacity. By targeting barriers that uniquely impact providers, systems, and patients, as well as building upon strategies that PCPs are already using, medical providers can support PCPs to help with the provision of genetic services.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Primary Prevention Advice in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Provider Attitudes and Routine Behaviours

Implementing risk-stratified breast cancer screening is being considered internationally. It has been suggested that primary care will need to take a role in delivering this service, including risk assessment and provision of primary prevention advice. This systematic review aimed to assess the acceptability of these tasks to primary care providers. Five databases were searched up to July-August 2020, yielding 29 eligible studies, of which 27 were narratively synthesised. The review was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42020197676). Primary care providers report frequently collecting breast cancer family history information, but rarely using quantitative tools integrating additional risk factors. Primary care providers reported high levels of discomfort and low confidence with respect to risk-reducing medications although very few reported doubts about the evidence base underpinning their use. Insufficient education/training and perceived discomfort conducting both tasks were notable barriers. Primary care providers are more likely to accept an increased role in breast cancer risk assessment than advising on risk-reducing medications. To realise the benefits of risk-based screening and prevention at a population level, primary care will need to proactively assess breast cancer risk and advise on risk-reducing medications. To facilitate this, adaptations to infrastructure such as integrated tools are necessary in addition to provision of education.

Primary Care Physician Experiences with Integrated Population-Scale Genetic Testing: A Mixed-Methods Assessment

The scalable delivery of genomic medicine requires collaboration between genetics and non-genetics providers. Thus, it is essential to investigate and address the perceived value of and barriers to incorporating genetic testing into the clinical practice of primary care providers (PCPs). We used a mixed-methods approach of qualitative interviews and surveys to explore the experience of PCPs involved in the pilot DNA-10K population genetic testing program. Similar to previous research, PCPs reported low confidence with tasks related to ordering, interpreting and managing the results of genetic tests, and identified the need for additional education. PCPs endorsed high levels of utility for patients and their families but noted logistical challenges to incorporating genetic testing into their practice. Overall PCPs were not familiar with the United States' Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and they expressed high levels of concern for patient data privacy and potential insurance discrimination. This PCP feedback led to the development and implementation of several processes to improve the PCP experience with the DNA-10K program. These results contribute to the knowledge base regarding genomic implementation using a mixed provider model and may be beneficial for institutions developing similar clinical programs.