A model for patient-direct screening and referral for familial cancer risk

Interventions to improve delivery of cancer genetics services in the United States: A scoping review

PURPOSE

Interventions that decrease barriers and improve clinical processes can increase patient access to guideline-recommended cancer genetics services. We sought to identify and describe interventions to improve patient receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services in the United States.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 1, 2000 to February 12, 2020. Eligible articles reported interventions to improve the identification, referral, genetic counseling (GC), and genetic testing (GT) of patients in the United States. We independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full-text articles. Data were synthesized by grouping articles by clinical process.

RESULTS

Of 44 included articles, 17 targeted identification of eligible patients, 14 targeted referral, 15 targeted GC, and 16 targeted GT. Patient identification interventions included universal tumor testing and screening of medical/family history. Referral interventions included medical record system adaptations, standardizing processes, and provider notifications. GC interventions included supplemental patient education, integrated GC within oncology clinics, appointment coordination, and alternative service delivery models. One article directly targeted the GT process by implementing provider-coordinated testing.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified and described interventions to improve US patients' access to and receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services.

Perceptions and care Recommendations from Previvors: Qualitative analysis of female BRCA1/2 mutation Carriers' experience with genetic testing and counseling

Introduction

It is estimated that 12.5% of women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 1.10% with ovarian cancer during their lifetime. Although less common, women with these mutations have a 11-72% increased risk of breast/ovarian cancers and are hereditary. Genetic testing/counseling presents the opportunity to identify carriers of BRCA1/2 genetic mutations before a cancer diagnosis.

Methods

Thirty-four BRCA1/2-positive women (with and without histories of breast/ovarian cancers) were recruited through online national support groups to gain a better understanding of their genetic testing/counseling perceptions and experiences. After confirming eligibility, they were invited to participate in either a telephone or webcam interview. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative thematic text analysis and descriptive coding techniques.

Results

Six major themes emerged, capturing the perceptions and experiences of genetic testing/counseling for these women: 1) Emotional Reactions to Results and Genetic Counseling, 2) Future Recommendations, 3) Family Solidarity and Support, 4) Experiences with the Healthcare System, 5) Preventive Concerns and Decisions, and 6) Sources Affecting Perceived Risk. Two subthemes also emerged within the first theme, which are termed "Pre-vivor," and "Testing Intuition."

Conclusions

Participants indicated that genetic testing/counseling improvements would be helpful for women in this population surrounding quality care, including sensitivity training for healthcare professionals involved in testing/counseling, additional educational resources, and increased emotional and financial support. Although these recommendations may be beneficial, more widespread research with greater generalizability to disparate groups may be necessary prior to implementation.

Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review

Background

Many medical family history (FH) tools are available for various settings. Although FH tools can be a powerful health screening tool in primary care (PC), they are currently underused.

Objectives

This review explores the FH tools currently available for PC and evaluates their clinical performance.

Methods

Five databases were systematically searched until May 2021. Identified tools were evaluated on the following criteria: time-to-complete, integration with electronic health record (EMR) systems, patient administration, risk-assessment ability, evidence-based management recommendations, analytical and clinical validity and clinical utility.

Results

We identified 26 PC FH tools. Analytical and clinical validity was poorly reported and agreement between FH and gold standard was commonly inadequately reported and assessed. Sensitivity was acceptable; specificity was found in half of the reviewed tools to be poor. Most reviewed tools showed a capacity to successfully identify individuals with increased risk of disease (6.2–84.6% of high and/or moderate or increased risk individuals).

Conclusion

Despite the potential of FH tools to improve risk stratification of patients in PC, clinical performance of current tools remains limited as well as their integration in EMR systems. Twenty-one FH tools are designed to be self-administered by patients.

A Breast Radiology Department-operated, Proactive Same-day Program Identifies Pathogenic Breast Cancer Mutations in Unaffected Women

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Pathogenic mutations in some genes elevate women's breast cancer risk, necessitating risk-reduction strategies. Unfortunately, women are underscreened for cancer risk, and when identified as potentially high risk, women seldom pursue genetic counseling or testing. To improve cancer risk management, this project determined the feasibility of radiology-operated, proactive, same-day risk assessment and genetic testing programs to diagnose high-risk women undergoing breast imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Comprehensive Assessment, Risk & Education Program launched on June 5, 2019. Data was tracked through July 22, 2020. Women undergoing breast imaging completed questionnaires that calculated Tyrer-Cuzick risk and assessed genetic testing eligibility using National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. To encourage eligible women's genetic testing adherence, pretest counseling and saliva sample collection occurred that same day in the imaging center. Samples were tested by a 34-multigene panel. Genetic counselors called women with positive results. Women with negative results or variants of uncertain significance were mailed notifications. Summary statistics were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 3345 women completed questionnaires. 1080 (32.3%) met genetic testing criteria. 468/1080 (43.3%) submitted genetic samples, and 416/1080 (38.5%) completed testing. Of 416 completed tests, 269 (64.7%) tested negative, 109 (26.2%) had variants of uncertain significance, and 38 (9.1%) diagnosed pathogenic mutations. 13/38 (34.2%) women with pathogenic mutations implemented risk-reduction strategies at our institution.

CONCLUSION

Breast imaging centers can operate same-day cancer risk assessment and genetic testing programs, identifying high-risk women that conventional risk assessment methods may not have diagnosed. These proactive programs add value to radiology departments' cancer care beyond traditional imaging services.

Feasibility of Utilizing PREMM Score for Lynch Syndrome Identification in an Urban, Minority Patient Population

The PREMM₅ model is a web-based clinical prediction algorithm that estimates the gene-specific risk of an individual carrying a Lynch syndrome germline mutation based on targeted family history questions. The objectives of our study were to determine the feasibility of screening for LS in an urban, minority patient population in a primary care setting using the PREMM₅ model and characterize patient barriers associated with difficulty completing the questions. Participants were recruited from Tulane Internal Medicine primary care clinics on 9 random collection dates. Our data illustrates the difficulty patients have in recalling important details necessary to answer the PREMM questionnaire.

Implications of ACMG guidelines to identify high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients with hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes (HCSS) in a highly consanguineous population

BACKGROUND

Hereditary cancer susceptibility syndrome (HCSS) contributes to the cancer predisposition at an early age, therefore, identification of HCSS has found to be crucial for surveillance, managing therapeutic interventions and refer the patients and their families for genetic counselling. The study aimed to identify ALL patients who meet the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) criteria and refer them for the genetic testing for HCSS as hereditary leukemia and hematologic malignancy syndrome, and to elucidate the significance of high consanguinity with the prevalence of inherited leukemia in Pakistani population.

METHODS

A total of 300 acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients were recruited from the Children's Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan from December 2018 to September 2019. A structured self-reporting questionnaire based on family and medical history of the disease was utilized for the data collection.

RESULTS

In our cohort, 60.40% of ALL patients were identified to meet ACMG criteria. Among them, a large number of patients (40.65%) solely fulfil the criteria due to the presence of parental consanguinity. However, parental consanguinity showed protective impact on the onset at early age of disease [OD = 0.44 (0.25-0.77), p-value = 0.00] while, a family history of cancer increased the risk of cardiotoxicity [OD = 2.46 (1.15-5.24), p-value = 0.02]. Parental consanguinity shows no significant impact on the family history of cancer and the number of relatives with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 50% of the ALL patients were considered the strong candidates' for genetic testing of HCSS in the Pakistani population, and parental consanguinity was the leading criteria fulfilled by the individuals when assessed through ACMG guidelines. Our study suggests revisiting ACMG guidelines, especially for the criterion of parental consanguinity, and formulating the score based criteria based on; genetic research, the toxicology profile, physical features, personal and family history of cancer for the identification of patients for the genetic testing.

Effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions to inform decision making and improve uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Inherited colorectal cancer syndromes increase the risk of contracting colorectal and other cancers. International guidelines recommend the identification of individuals with hereditary colorectal cancer and the supervision of asymptomatic individuals with a family history. However, detection of hereditary colorectal cancer is suboptimal. The prevalence of genetic counselling and testing for individuals with high genetic risk is low.

OBJECTIVE

To identify, characterize and summarize patient-targeted interventions on improving the uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals and enhancing their informed decision making.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Six electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane library) were searched to identify eligible clinical trials from each database's inception to March 25, 2020. The reference lists of the included studies and reviews were checked for additional articles.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies were screened and independently appraised by two reviewers using the standardized critical appraisal checklist for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies from the Joanna Briggs Institute. The results were tabulated and reported in descriptive format.

RESULTS

Based on the inclusion criteria, 8 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included. The studies examined patient-targeted intervention strategies related to risk assessment, education, and decision aids. Outcomes included (1) informed decisions regarding microsatellite instability testing, (2) informed decisions concerning genetic testing, (3) genetic counselling and testing. Most of the included studies revealed that interventions had positive effects on the uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals and their informed decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

There were few studies included in this review, and the results were inconsistent. Based on this review, the conclusion cannot be made that interventions for risk assessment, education, and decision aids have positive effects on the uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals and their informed decision making. However, to our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to summarize the effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions to inform decision making and improve uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals. This review provides important evidence for related topics. Future studies with rigorous designs are recommended. Nurses have a crucial role in personalized health care. The involvement of nurses in collaboration with all the stakeholders in the development, implementation and evaluation of cancer genetic screening programs to improve genetic referral of individual at risk.

Initiatives to Scale Up and Expand Reach of Cancer Genomic Services Outside of Specialty Clinical Settings: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

This systematic review aims to (1) characterize strategies used to identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and Lynch syndrome outside of oncology and clinical genetic settings, (2) describe the extent to which these strategies have extended the reach of genetic services to underserved target populations, and (3) summarize indicators of the potential scalability of these strategies.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Investigators searched PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for manuscripts published from October 2005 to August 2019. Eligible manuscripts were those published in English, those that described strategies to identify those at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome, those implemented outside of an oncology or genetic specialty clinic, and those that included measures of cancer genetic services uptake. This study assessed strategies used to increase the reach of genetic risk screening and counseling services. Each study was evaluated using the 16-item quality assessment tool, and results were reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Of the 16 eligible studies, 11 were conducted in clinical settings and 5 in public health settings. Regardless of setting, most (63%, 10/16) used brief screening tools to identify people with a family history suggestive of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome. When reported, genetic risk screening reach (range =11%-100%) and genetic counseling reach (range =11%-100%) varied widely across studies. Strategies implemented in public health settings appeared to be more successful (median counseling reach=65%) than those implemented in clinical settings (median counseling reach=26%). Most studies did not describe fundamental components relevant for broad scalability.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to expand cancer genomic services are limited outside of traditional oncology and genetic clinics. This is a missed opportunity because evidence thus far suggests that these efforts can be successful in expanding the reach of genetic services with the potential to reduce health inequities in access. This review highlights the need for accelerating research that applies evidence-based implementation strategies and frameworks along with process evaluation to understand barriers and facilitators to scalability of strategies with high reach.

Utilization of clinical genetic counseling among childhood and young adult cancer survivors in a registry trial

We describe utilization of clinical genetic services among survivors of childhood and young adult cancer after participation in a genetic registry. Clinical genetic counselors flagged 162 out of 1069 pedigrees (15.2%) as suggestive of inheritable cancer susceptibility, resulting in 126 (11.8%) referral letters. Following delivery of the referral letters, 19 (15.1%) participants completed clinical genetic counseling, 16 (12.7%) received testing, and four (3.2%) were found to have actionable results. Our results suggest a discordance between reported willingness to undergo genetic counseling and real-world utilization.

What do cancer patients' relatives think about addressing cancer family history and performing genetic testing in palliative care?

Palliative care may be an opportunity to discuss cancer family history and familial cancer risks with patients' relatives. It may also represent the last opportunity to collect, from dying patients, clinical data and biospecimens that will inform cancer risk assessment and prevention in their surviving relatives. This study aims to explore the perspectives of cancer patients' relatives about cancer heritability, addressing cancer family history, and performing genetic testing in palliative care settings. Thirteen first-degree relatives of cancer patients who died in palliative care participated in the study. Two focus groups were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Two independent coders conducted a thematic content analysis. The themes included: (1) Knowledge of cancer heritability; (2) Experiences and expectations regarding cancer family history discussions, and (3) Views on genetic testing in palliative care patients and DNA biobanking. Participants seemed aware that cancer family history is a potential risk factor for developing the disease. They considered the palliative care period an inappropriate moment to discuss cancer heritability. They also did not consider palliative care providers as appropriate resources to consult for such matters as they are not specialized in this field. Participants welcomed DNA biobanking and genetic testing conducted at the palliative care patients' request. Cancer occurrence within families raises concerns among relatives about cancer heritability, but the palliative care period is not considered the most appropriate moment to address this issue. However, discussions about the risk to cancer patients' relatives might need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

What characterizes cancer family history collection tools? A critical literature review

Background

Many tools have been developed for the standardized collection of cancer family history (fh). However, it remains unclear which tools have the potential to help health professionals overcome traditional barriers to collecting such histories. In this review, we describe the characteristics, validation process, and performance of existing tools and appraise the extent to which those tools can support health professionals in identifying and managing at-risk individuals.

Methods

Studies were identified through searches of the medline, embase, and Cochrane central databases from October 2015 to September 2016. Articles were included if they described a cancer fh collection tool, its use, and its validation process.

Results

Based on seventy-nine articles published between February 1978 and September 2016, 62 tools were identified. Most of the tools were paper-based and designed to be self-administered by lay individuals. One quarter of the tools could automatically produce pedigrees, provide cancer-risk assessment, and deliver evidence-based recommendations. One third of the tools were validated against a standard reference for collected fh quality and cancer-risk assessment. Only 3 tools were integrated into an electronic health records system.

Conclusions

In the present review, we found no tool with characteristics that might make it an efficient clinical support for health care providers in cancer-risk identification and management. Adequately validated tools that are connected to electronic health records are needed to encourage the systematic identification of individuals at increased risk of cancer.

A qualitative study of barriers to genetic counseling and potential for mobile technology education among women with ovarian cancer

Background

National guidelines recommend genetic counseling for all ovarian cancer patients because up to 20% of ovarian cancers are thought to be due to hereditary cancer syndromes and effective cancer screening and prevention options exist for at-risk family members. Despite these recommendations, uptake of genetic counselling and testing is low. The goal of this study was to identify barriers to and motivators for receipt of genetic counseling along with preferences regarding potential use of a mobile application to promote genetic counseling.

Methods

Three focus groups were conducted including 14 women with a diagnosis of epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer. Topics included understanding of genetic counseling, perceived pros and cons, preferences for receiving health information, and familiarity with mobile phone technology. Transcripts were analyzed using standard procedures of qualitative thematic text analysis and descriptive coding techniques.

Results

Six major themes regarding barriers to and motivators of genetic counseling and use of mobile technology in promoting genetic counseling emerged: (1) need for information, (2) relevance, (3) emotional concerns, (4) family concerns, (5) practical concerns, and (6) mobile application considerations.

Conclusions

These data reiterate previously reported barriers to genetic counseling as observed in other populations. Participants were supportive of the use of mobile technology for promoting uptake of genetic counseling.