Primary care physician referral practices regarding BRCA1/2 genetic counseling in a major health system

Knowledge, attitude, and practice towards uterine cervical cancer screening in Egyptian females: a nationwide cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among women worldwide; it is ranked the 4th most common cancer among women globally. The current recommendation for cervical cancer (CC) screening involves the use of cytology examination methods like Pap smear. However, there is a lack of data on the practice of Pap smear screening in Egypt. Furthermore, understanding the knowledge, attitudes, and barriers related to cervical cancer screening among potential participants is crucial.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we conducted interviews with female patients aged 21 years or more who visited outpatient clinics in six university hospitals across Egypt. The survey aimed to assess participants' compliance with CC screening guidelines, their knowledge of and attitude toward CC screening, and their perception of potential barriers.

RESULTS

A total of 897 participants from the six study centers completed the survey. Only a small percentage (1.1%) of participants had undergone CC screening, although only (0.8%) of the participants were referred to do CC screening. The referral rate was more likely to be higher in participants who had one of their first-degree relatives or the surrounding people with a history of CC compared to those who have no one with CC (37.5% vs. 0.4%, P < 0.001; 5% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.035 respectively). Moreover, the referral rate was higher among participants who discussed CC and CC screening with their physicians (15.8% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001; 23.5% vs. 0.3%, P < 0.001 respectively). Knowledge of CC screening was limited, with only 2.7% of respondents demonstrating good actual knowledge. However, after introducing the concept of CC screening to all participants, the majority (74.6%) showed a positive attitude towards undergoing the procedure. Lack of knowledge about the procedure, its tool, the place to do it, and financial burden were cited as the most common barriers to CC screening (79.8%, 65.9%, 64.2%, and 53.2%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Despite inadequate knowledge about CC screening, there is a positive attitude toward it among eligible participants in Egypt. This lack of knowledge likely contributes to low compliance with current CC screening guidelines and calls for national-level efforts to address this issue.

Validation of a guidelines-based digital tool to assess the need for germline cancer genetic testing

BACKGROUND

Efficient and scalable solutions are needed to identify patients who qualify for germline cancer genetic testing. We evaluated the clinical validity of a brief, patient-administered hereditary cancer risk assessment digital tool programmed to assess if patients meet criteria for germline genetic testing, based on personal and family history, and in line with national guidelines.

METHODS

We applied the tool to cases seen in a nationwide telehealth genetic counseling practice. Validity of the tool was evaluated by comparing the tool's assessment to that of the genetic counselor who saw the patient. Patients' histories were extracted from genetic counselor-collected pedigrees and input into the tool by the research team to model how a patient would complete the tool. We also validated the tool's assessment of which specific aspects of the personal and family history met criteria for genetic testing. Descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

Of the 152 cases (80% female, mean age 52.3), 56% had a personal history of cancer and 66% met genetic testing criteria. The tool and genetic counselor agreed in 96% of cases. Most disagreements (4/6; 67%) occurred because the genetic counselor's assessment relied on details the tool was not programmed to collect since patients typically don't have access to the relevant information (pathology details, risk models). We also found complete agreement between the tool and research team on which specific aspects of the patient's history met criteria for genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

We observed a high level of agreement with genetic counselor assessments, affirming the tool's clinical validity in identifying individuals for hereditary cancer predisposition testing and its potential for increasing access to hereditary cancer risk assessment.

Establishment of a clinical cancer genetics program for breast cancer in a resource-limited country; challenges and opportunities

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women worldwide, and its incidence rate is still increasing, especially among younger women. Nationally, it constitutes one-fifth of all cancer cases and almost 40% of all female cancers. With a median age of 51 years, breast cancer is diagnosed at least a decade earlier, and at more advanced stages compared to Western societies. Hereditary cancers account for 10% or more of all cancer burden worldwide. With expanded indications, increased number of genes tested, and significant decline in cost of testing, such proportion will probably increase. Individuals with pathogenic variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 are at higher risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic and many other cancers. Over the past two decades, several highly penetrant cancer-susceptibility genes were identified across almost all tumor sites, thus increasing the need for comprehensive cancer genetic programs that address the testing process, counselling patients and at-risk family members, and then deal with all testing results and its consequences. In addition to its important role in preventing more cancers in index patients themselves and among their close relatives, identification of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, mostly in BRCA1 or BRCA2, may inform therapeutic decisions in common cancers including breast, ovarian, prostate and pancreatic cancers. In this manuscript, we describe the experience of a comprehensive cancer center, in a resource-limited country in establishing a comprehensive clinical cancer genetics program that can serve as an example for others who share similar demographic and financial restrains.

Commentary: Why is genetic testing underutilized worldwide? The case for hereditary breast cancer

It is thirty years since the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were discovered and genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 was introduced. Despite increasing awareness of the genetic basis of cancer and our evolving knowledge of effective means of prevention, screening, and treatment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers, genetic testing is underutilized, and most mutation carriers remain unidentified. In this commentary, we explore possible reasons for why this might be so. Our focus is on factors that may influence or deter a patient from pursuing testing, rather than discussing the implications of receiving a positive test result. Issues of concern include an inadequate number of genetic counselors, restrictive (and conflicting) eligibility criteria for testing, the cost of the test, health insurance coverage, fear of future insurance discrimination, privacy issues, lack of familiarity with the testing process in primary care and gaps in both patient and provider knowledge about the impact and the value of testing. We discuss how these factors may lead to the underutilization of genetic testing in North America and throughout the world and discuss alternative models of genetic healthcare delivery. We have invited leaders in cancer genetic from around the world to tell us what they think are the barriers to testing in their host countries.

Genetic counseling processes and strategies for racially and ethnically diverse populations: A systematic review

Genetic counseling outcomes are influenced by the processes and strategies used by counselors, yet little is known about how these strategies directly impact patients and populations. In particular, tailoring genetic counseling consultations to best meet the needs of cultural, racial, and ethnically diverse populations has been explored. This review aims to identify genetic counseling strategies tailored for a diversity of racial and ethnic populations with the goal to find ways to improve genetic counseling outcomes. Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases were searched for original research articles published in English that employed genetic counseling processes and strategies to improve genetic counseling outcomes, specifically for participants from ethnically or racially diverse populations. A review of 5300 titles and abstracts resulted in the identification of 36 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Three themes emerged: (1) community involvement in culturally tailoring genetic counseling, (2) creation and use of culturally tailored resources, and (3) modifications to the genetic counseling process. The effectiveness of genetic counseling strategies could not be evaluated due to lack of consistent outcome measures in the articles. The involvement of diverse ethnic and racial populations in developing inclusive genetic counseling tools and practices will help the profession provide better patient care in the future. More research connecting genetic counseling processes and outcomes will help to assess how well these modified approaches meet the needs of diverse populations.

Challenges to genetic testing for germline mutations associated with breast cancer among African Americans

Inequities in preventive cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and inferior cancer outcomes continue to pose challenges across the cancer continuum. While the exact reasons for these inferior outcomes are unknown, multiple barriers to various domains of social determinants of health (SDOH) play a vital role, leading to inequities in cancer care. These include barriers to transportation, housing, and food insecurities, contributing to delays in preventive screening and treatment. Furthermore, aggressive biologies also exist across various racial profiles with accompanying germline mutations. For example, African Americans (AAs) have a higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer subtype and a high prevalence of BRCA1/2 gene mutations, increasing the risk of multiple cancers, warranting high-risk screening for these populations. Unfortunately, other barriers, such as financial insecurities, low health literacy rates, and lack of awareness, lead to delays in cancer screening and genetic testing, even with available high-risk screening and risk reduction procedures. In addition, physicians receive minimal interdisciplinary training to address genetic assessment, interpretation of the results, and almost no additional training in addressing the unique needs of racial minorities, leading to suboptimal delivery of genetic assessment provision resources among AAs. In this review, we discuss the confluence of factors and barriers limiting genetic testing among AAs and highlight the prevalence of germline mutations associated with increased risk of breast cancer among AAs, reflecting the need for multi-panel germline testing as well as education regarding hereditary cancer risks in underserved minorities.

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.