A systematic review and meta-analysis of telephone vs in-person genetic counseling in BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing

Effects on Cancer Prevention from the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruption of health services around the world, including cancer services. We carried out a narrative review of the effect of the pandemic on cancer prevention services, including screening. Services were severely affected in the early months of the pandemic, and in some areas are still recovering. Large numbers of additional cancers or additional late-stage cancers have been predicted to arise over the coming years as a result of this disruption. To minimize the effects on cancer outcomes, it is necessary to return as quickly as possible to prepandemic levels of screening and prevention activity or indeed to exceed these levels. The recovery of services should address health inequalities.

The Role of the Surgeon in the Germline Testing of the Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patient

For patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, information regarding hereditary predisposition can influence treatment decisions. From a surgical standpoint, patients with known germline mutations may alter decisions of local therapy to reduce the risk of second breast primaries. This information may also be considered in the choice of adjuvant therapies or eligibility for clinical trials. In recent years, the criteria for the consideration of germline testing in patients with breast cancer has expanded. Additionally, studies have shown a similar prevalence of pathogenic mutations in those patients outside of these traditional criteria, prompting calls for genetic testing for all patients with a history of breast cancer. While data confirms the benefit of counseling by certified genetics professionals, the capacity of genetic counselors may no longer meet the needs of these growing numbers of patients. National societies assert that counseling and testing can be performed by providers with training and experience in genetics. Breast surgeons are well positioned to offer this service, as they receive formal genetics training during their fellowship, manage these patients daily in their practices, and are often the first providers to see patients after their cancer diagnosis.

Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated remote cancer care delivery via the internet and telephone, rapidly accelerating an already growing care delivery model and associated research. This scoping review of reviews characterised the peer-reviewed literature reviews on digital health and telehealth interventions in cancer published from database inception up to May 1, 2022, from PubMed, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, and Web of Science. Eligible reviews conducted a systematic literature search. Data were extracted in duplicate via a pre-defined online survey. Following screening, 134 reviews met the eligibility criteria. 77 of those reviews were published since 2020. 128 reviews summarised interventions intended for patients, 18 addressed family caregivers, and five addressed health-care providers. 56 reviews did not target a specific phase of the cancer continuum, whereas 48 reviews tended to address the active treatment phase. 29 reviews included a meta-analysis, with results showing positive effects on quality of life, psychological outcomes, and screening behaviours. 83 reviews did not report intervention implementation outcomes but when reported, 36 reported acceptability, 32 feasibility, and 29 fidelity outcomes. Several notable gaps were identified in these literature reviews on digital health and telehealth in cancer care. No reviews specifically addressed older adults, bereavement, or sustainability of interventions and only two reviews focused on comparing telehealth to in-person interventions. Addressing these gaps with rigorous systematic reviews might help guide continued innovation in remote cancer care, particularly for older adults and bereaved families, and integrate and sustain these interventions within oncology.

Remote vs in-person BRCA1/2 non-carriers test disclosure: patients' choice during Covid-19 pandemic restriction

During Covid-19 pandemic most hospitals have restricted in-person delivery of non-essential healthcare services, including genetic testing delivery, to slow the spread of the virus. Our Onco-Genetic Service also faced this challenging period and had to re-organize its clinical practice with the use of tele-health. Aim of the present paper is to understand whether and how Covid-19-related changes in medical practice influenced patients' satisfaction about the health service provided. 125 BRCA1/2 non carriers (109/125, 87.2% female and 16/125, 12.8% male) in Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II" of Bari were enrolled. All participants were asked to choose whether they prefer in-person or remote post-test counselling session. Basing on patients' choice, two groups of subjects were composed. One week after the post-test counselling session, participants were phone called and asked to complete: a socio-demographic form, a brief structured interview about their Covid-19 related worries and their satisfaction with the health service provided, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Fear of Covid-19 scale. Qualitative information about patients' choice were also collected. No significant difference about patients' satisfaction with the health service provided emerged between groups. Patients who preferred remote post-test counselling had higher anxiety, worries and fear-of Covid-19 than the others. All remote-counselling subjects preferred tele-genetics because of Covid-19 security, would choose it again and would recommend it to others. Cancer tele-genetics offers good guarantees of comfort and efficacy, but patients' choices are related to personal and psychological variables. The use of tele-genetics has to be a patient's choice.

An overview of genetic services delivery for hereditary breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women worldwide, with approximately 5-10% of cases attributed to high penetrance hereditary breast cancer (HBC) genes. The tremendous advances in precision oncology have broadened indications for germline genetic testing to guide both systemic and surgical treatment, with increasing demand for cancer genetic services. The HBC continuum of care includes (1) identification, access, and uptake of genetic counseling and testing; (2) the delivery of genetic counseling and testing services; and (3) initiation of guideline-adherent follow-up care and family communication of results. Challenges to delivering care on the HBC care continuum include factors such as access to services, cost, discrimination and bias, and lack of education and awareness, which can be mitigated through implementing a multi-level approach. This includes strategies such as increasing awareness and utilization of genetic counseling and testing, developing new methods to meet the growing demand for genetic services, and improving the uptake of follow-up care by increasing patient and provider awareness of the management recommendations.

Evaluating the experiences of individuals with personal health risks identified through expanded carrier screening

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) is used to identify individuals and couples at risk for having children with recessive or X-linked genetic conditions; however, personal health risks (PHR) can also be identified through this testing. There is limited data on how genetic counseling regarding PHR from ECS is perceived by the individual, or how they use this information. This study quantitatively surveyed individuals identified with these risks between September 2013 and March 2020. The 30-item survey included the validated Genomics Outcome Scale Short Form, the validated Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale, and original questions. Survey topics included pre-test knowledge of the possibility of discovering PHR through testing, satisfaction with pre-test education that addresses potential risks, perceived severity of PHR, empowerment by and understanding of information, anxiety levels related to their PHR, perceived genetic counseling support, and satisfaction with telehealth. A total of 416 completed surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and linear and logistic regressions. The majority of participants were satisfied or extremely satisfied with pre-test education (n = 328; 78.8%) and telehealth (n = 329; 79.1%). However, more participants who were aware of the possibility of identifying PHR through ECS prior to testing were satisfied with pre-test education compared to those who were not aware. Additionally, a lack of prior awareness of PHR was associated with lower empowerment scores (p = .004). Those who were highly satisfied with genetic counseling were more likely to feel empowered and understand the information presented (p = .001). The majority of individuals used their PHR information following their results appointment (n = 391; 94.0%). The results of this study suggest that receiving PHR information was useful and was positively influenced by both pre-test education and the genetic counseling process.

Analysis of the reported use of practice-based competencies by North American genetic counselors during the COVID-19 pandemic

Genetic counseling services changed due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Many genetic counselors (GCs) moved from in‐person to telehealth services. Others were redeployed by choice or necessity, using their expertise to provide COVID‐19 care and education. For some, their employment status changed due to budgetary constraints or decreasing referrals. This study surveyed North American GCs to assess the relative use of genetic counseling Practice‐Based Competencies (PBCs) as a proxy for the skills used during the first wave of the pandemic, whether GCs were in their current role or in new or adjusted roles. A secondary aim was to determine whether GCs believe their training should be refocused in view of the workforce shifts posed by the pandemic. The survey comprised closed‐ and open‐ended questions and was completed in full by 97 respondents. The study population was representative of the general genetic counseling workforce in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, age, and practice area when compared to the National Society of Genetic Counselors 2020 Professional Status Survey. Most participants (97.9%) indicated that the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in a change to their work, and 89.7% used at least one PBC at a different frequency than before the pandemic. The most significant change was the adaptation of genetic counseling skills for varied service delivery models: 83.5% of respondents indicated that their roles and responsibilities moved to a remote setting and/or utilized telehealth. The majority of participants felt competent using the PBCs during the pandemic. Major themes that emerged from the qualitative data were as follows: (a) adaptation of service delivery, (b) translation of genetic counseling skills, and (c) provision of psychosocial support. This study highlights practice changes for GCs due to the COVID‐19 pandemic as well as the increased use of, and need for focused training in, varied service delivery models.

Characteristics of 1270 Chinese sibling pairs with cancer

Background

Previous research found that the cancer history of an individual’s sibling may be a better indicator than that of the parents. We aim to provide recommendations for opportunistic screening for individuals whose sibling had been diagnosed with cancer.

Methods

During the physical examination in Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, 43,300 people were asked if they have at least two siblings who developed cancer.

Results

A total of 1270 sibling-pairs from 766 families developed cancer, including 367 pairs of brothers (Bro-pairs), 368 pairs of sisters (Sis-pairs), and 535 pairs of brother-and-sister (BroSis-pairs). The mean ages at diagnosis of cancer for the three groups were from 58 to 62 years. More than half of Bro-pairs (55.3%) or Sis-pairs (51.1%) had cancer from the same systemic origin, and more than a quarter of Bro-pairs (28.1%) and Sis-pairs (37.2%) developed the same type of cancer. However, only 36.0% of BroSis-pairs developed cancers from the same systemic origin, and 18.9% developed the same type of cancer. In Bro-pairs and BroSis-pairs, lung cancer and digestive system cancer were the most common cancers, while in Sis-pairs, breast cancer, lung cancer, cervical cancer, liver cancer and thyroid cancer were the most common ones.

Conclusions

If an individual’s sibling is diagnosed with cancer, the individual should consider participating in opportunistic screening annually, especially for lung cancer and digestive system cancers for both sexes. For sisters, breast cancer, cervical cancer and thyroid cancer should be screened early. Additionally, genetic services are essential for individuals who have siblings with cancer.

Telehealth for genetic counseling: A systematic evidence review

Telehealth options, such as telephone counseling or videoconferencing, for service delivery in genetic counseling are becoming more widely accepted. However, until now, there has not been a systematic review of the literature focused specifically on genetic counseling outcomes for telehealth. We performed a systematic evidence review to compare telehealth genetic counseling (THGC), including videoconferencing and telephone counseling, across specialties to in-person genetic counseling (IPGC) for a range of outcomes specific to patient and provider experiences and access to care. Several biomedical databases were queried up to January 11, 2021, to identify original research evaluating THGC. Through this search, 42 articles met the inclusion criteria including 13 randomized controlled trials and 29 non-randomized observational studies encompassing 13,901 patients. Most included studies focused only on cancer genetic counseling; however, adult, pediatric, and prenatal specialties were also represented. The majority of studies evaluated patient and/or access to care outcomes. Though most studies reported high patient satisfaction with THGC, as well as comparable rates of trust and rapport, confidence in privacy, health behavior changes, and psychosocial outcomes, few represented diverse populations. Data of provider experiences were limited and varied with more disadvantages noted compared with patient experiences, particularly in studies involving telephone genetic counseling. Studies consistently reported a decrease in the patients' costs and time required for travel when patients are seen via THGC compared to IPGC with a similar reduction in costs to the health system. Overall, results from our evidence synthesis suggest THGC is non-inferior or comparable to IPGC across many domains, even considering that many of the studies included in this review were conducted with telehealth systems, notably videoconferencing, that were less robust and reliable than what is available today. There are notable limitations within this body of literature, leading to potential uncertainty in the generalizability of our analysis. We outline several recommendations for future studies.

Results of the Genetic Counselor SARS-CoV-2 Impact Survey from the National Society of Genetic Counselors: Progress and penalty during the COVID-19 pandemic

The Genetic Counselor SARS‐CoV‐2 Impact Survey (GCSIS) describes the impact of the pandemic on genetic counselors and genetic counseling services. With this information, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) can better: (1) support advocacy and access efforts for genetic counseling services at both federal‐ and state‐level; (2) promote effective billing and reimbursement for genetic counseling services provided via telemedicine; and (3) make decisions about how to best support genetic counselors.

The survey was hosted on a novel data collection and analysis platform from LunaDNA and was open to all genetic counselors (n = 5,531 based on professional society membership). Survey response rate was approximately 3.8% (n = 212/5,531), with a demographic distribution broadly representative of the North American genetic counseling field. Genetic counselors remained largely employed, providing genetic counseling services throughout the pandemic, although almost one in five respondents (17%, n = 35/211) reported experiencing some degree of pandemic‐related financial hardship. Nearly all respondents (90%, n = 104/115) transitioned, at least in part, to remote work settings, with about half (47%. n = 88/189) reporting restrictions in the care they were able to provide. These shifts came at a cost: existing gaps in Medicare status for genetic counselors and attendant reimbursement concerns led to uncertainty about whether genetic counselors' work will be reimbursed. Outside of work, caregiving responsibilities increased for 34% (n = 74/212) of respondents.

The results of the GCSIS amplify the importance of federal‐ and state‐level advocacy efforts for genetic counselors and their employers. They also highlight the impact of broader cultural intransigence on our majority‐female profession. During the pandemic, genetic counselors continued to provide care, but without consistent financial support or expectation of reimbursement. The ability to attract and retain talented professionals to the genetic counseling field will hinge on the success of continued advocacy efforts.

Randomized study of remote telehealth genetic services versus usual care in oncology practices without genetic counselors

Purpose

To examine the benefit of telehealth over current delivery options in oncology practices without genetic counselors.

Methods

Participants meeting cancer genetic testing guidelines were recruited to this multi‐center, randomized trial comparing uptake of genetic services with remote services (telephone or videoconference) to usual care in six predominantly community practices without genetic counselors. The primary outcome was the composite uptake of genetic counseling or testing. Secondary outcomes compare telephone versus videoconference services.

Results

147 participants enrolled and 119 were randomized. Eighty percent of participants in the telehealth arm had genetic services as compared to 16% in the usual care arm (OR 30.52, p < 0.001). Five genetic mutation carriers (6.7%) were identified in the telehealth arm, compared to none in the usual care arm. In secondary analyses, factors associated with uptake were lower anxiety (6.77 vs. 8.07, p = 0.04) and lower depression (3.38 vs. 5.06, p = 0.04) among those who had genetic services. There were no significant differences in change in cognitive or affective outcomes immediately post‐counseling and at 6 and 12 months between telephone and videoconference arms.

Conclusion

Telehealth increases uptake of genetic counseling and testing at oncology practices without genetic counselors and could significantly improve identification of genetic carriers and cancer prevention outcomes.

Video consultations during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic are associated with high satisfaction for both doctors and patients

Background and Aim

Telehealth has become the standard of care during the COVID-19 outbreak. This study aimed to assess doctor and patient satisfaction of endoscopy-related telehealth clinics with video consultations.

Methods

A prospective observational study of patients consecutively booked to attend two endoscopy-related telehealth clinics at an ambulatory tertiary care setting was conducted from July to October 2020. Data collected from our previously published study using phone consultations (data collected in April-May 2020) were used as a control arm. The primary outcome (satisfaction) was assessed through the six-question score (6Q_score) as per previous research. Secondary outcomes included failure-to-attend (FTA) rate and perceived necessity of physical examination/in-person follow-up appointment.

Results

There were 962 endoscopy clinic appointments between July and October, of which 157 were conducted through video. Data on 127 doctor questionnaires and 94 patient questionnaires were analyzed. The median age (years) of patients reviewed via video [57, interquartile range (IQR) 48-66] was lower than those reviewed via phone (65, IQR 55-74, P < 0.01). Patient average 6Q_score was higher with video compared to phone (85.1% vs 78.4%, P = 0.01), as was doctors' 6Q_score (97.5% vs 91.9%, P = 0.02). FTA rates remained similar between the two assessments (6.4% in April/May and 4.4% between July/October, P = 0.12). The requirement for in-person follow-up/physical examination was identified in two video consultations (1.6%).

Conclusion

Video consultations during the COVID-19 outbreak demonstrated higher patient and doctor satisfaction compared to phone consultations. There was no significant difference in FTA rates and need for in-person follow-up consultations/physical examination between the telehealth two modalities.