Identification of Genetic Counseling Service Delivery Models in Practice: A Report from the NSGC Service Delivery Model Task Force

The Answer ALS return of results study: Answering the duty to disclose

Objective: The Return of Answer ALS Results (RoAR) Study was designed to provide a mechanism for participants in Answer ALS, a large, prospectively designed natural history and biorepository study to receive select clinical genetic testing results and study participants' experience with the results disclosure. Methods: Participants consented to receive results of five ALS genes (C9orf72, SOD1, FUS, TARDP, TBK1) and/or 59 medically actionable genes as designated by the American College of Medical Genetics. Patient-reported genetic testing outcomes were measured via a post-disclosure survey. Results: Of 645 eligible Answer ALS enrollees, 143 (22%) enrolled and completed participation in RoAR. Pathogenic variants were identified in 22/143 (15.4%) participants, including 13/143 (9.0%) in ALS genes and 9/143 (6.3%) in ACMG genes. Participant-reported measures of result utility indicated the research result disclosure was as or more successful than published patient-reported outcomes of result disclosure the clinical setting. Conclusions: This study serves as a model of a "disclosure study" to share results from genomic research with participants who were not initially offered the option to receive results, and our findings can inform the design of future, large scale genomic projects to empower research participants to access their genetic information.

Comparing cancer genetic counselling using telegenetics with in-person and telephone appointments: Results of a partially randomised patient-preference pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Direct-to-patient telegenetics, which uses video conferencing to connect health professionals directly to patients' devices, has been widely adopted during the pandemic. However, limited evidence currently supports its use in cancer genetic counselling.

METHODS

Before the pandemic, we conducted a two-arm partially randomised patient-preference pilot trial to evaluate direct-to-patient telegenetics for patients and genetic counsellors. Patients were randomised to a standard care (telephone/in-person) or direct-to-patient telegenetics appointment. Patients completed questionnaires before, during and after appointments measuring: psychological distress, perceived genetic counsellor empathy, telegenetics satisfaction and technical challenges. Genetic counsellor-reported outcomes -measured using purpose-designed questionnaires- included telegenetics satisfaction, therapeutic alliance and time for assessment. Open-ended patient and genetic counsellor questionnaire responses were synthesised using content analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients and seven genetic counsellors participated. Thirteen patients switched appointment type. No significant differences in distress (P  =  0.84) were identified between direct-to-patient telegenetics and standard care. Perceived genetic counsellor empathy was high for all appointment types. There was no evidence of differences in reported maximum empathy scores between direct-to-patient telegenetics and standard care [telephone (P  =  0.57); in-person (P  =  0.44)]. Patients reported high direct-to-patient telegenetics satisfaction despite technical challenges in most appointments (65%). Genetic counsellors were satisfied with direct-to-patient telegenetics and perceived high therapeutic alliance irrespective of appointment type. No significant differences in genetic counsellor time were identified between direct-to-patient telegenetics and standard care [telephone (P > 0.90); in-person (P  =  0.35)].

DISCUSSION

Our results suggest that direct-to-patient telegenetics is a satisfactory service delivery model that does not appear to compromise patient-genetic counsellor relationships or increase patient distress. These findings support direct-to-patient telegenetics use in cancer genetic counselling, although larger trials are needed.

The ENGAGE study: a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic services in childhood cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Germline cancer genetic testing has become a standard evidence-based practice, with established risk reduction and screening guidelines for genetic carriers. Access to genetic services is limited in many places, which leaves many genetic carriers unidentified and at risk for late diagnosis of cancers and poor outcomes. This poses a problem for childhood cancer survivors, as this is a population with an increased risk for subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN) due to cancer therapy or inherited cancer predisposition. The ENGaging and Activating cancer survivors in Genetic services (ENGAGE) study evaluates the effectiveness of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors compared to usual care options for genetic testing.

METHODS

The ENGAGE study is a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study within the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study population which tests a clinical intervention while gathering information on its delivery during the effectiveness trial and its potential for future implementation among 360 participants. Participants are randomized into three arms. Those randomized to Arm A receive genetic services via videoconferencing, those in Arm B receive these services by phone, and those randomized to Arm C will receive usual care services.

DISCUSSION

With many barriers to accessing genetic services, innovative delivery models are needed to address this gap and increase uptake of genetic services. The ENGAGE study evaluates the effectiveness of an adapted model of remote delivery of genetic services to increase the uptake of recommended genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors. This study assesses the uptake in remote genetic services and identify barriers to uptake to inform future recommendations and a theoretically-informed process evaluation which can inform modifications to enhance dissemination beyond this study population and to realize the benefits of precision medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04455698) on July 2, 2020.

Genetic counseling and testing for females at elevated risk for breast cancer: Protocol for the randomized controlled trial of the Know Your Risk intervention

BACKGROUND

Genetic counseling and testing have an important role in the care of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer. However, conventional pre- and post-test genetic counseling is labor and time intensive, less accessible for patients living outside major urban centers, and impractical on a large scale. A patient-driven approach to genetic counseling and testing may increase access, improve patients' experiences, affect efficiency of clinical practice, and help meet workforce demand. The objective of this 2-arm randomized controlled trial is to determine the efficacy of Know Your Risk (KYR), a genetic counseling patient preference intervention.

METHODS

Females (n = 1000) at elevated risk (>20% lifetime) for breast cancer will be randomized to the KYR intervention or conventional genetic counseling. The study will provide comprehensive assessment of breast cancer risk by multigene panel testing and validated polygenic risk score. Primary outcome is adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for a clinical encounter every 6-12 months and an annual mammogram (breast MRI if recommended) determined by medical record review. Secondary outcomes include adherence to other recommended cancer screening tests determined by medical record review and changes in breast cancer knowledge, perception of risk, post-test/counseling distress, and satisfaction with counseling by completion of three surveys during the study. Study aims will be evaluated for non-inferiority of the KYR intervention compared to conventional genetic counseling.

CONCLUSION

If efficacious, the KYR intervention has the potential to improve patients' experience and may change how genetic counseling is delivered, inform best practices, and reduce workforce burden.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT05325151.

Defining Need Amid Exponential Change: Conceptual Challenges in Workforce Planning for Clinical Genetic Services

Rapid growth in the volume of referrals to clinical genetics services in many countries during the past 15 years makes workforce planning a critical policy tool in ensuring that the capacity of the clinical genetics workforce is large enough to meet current and future needs. This article explores the distinctive challenges of workforce planning in clinical genetics and provides recommendations for addressing these challenges using a needs-based planning approach. Specifically, at least 3 features complicate efforts to estimate the need for clinical genetic services: the difficulty in linking many clinical genetic services to concrete health outcomes; the rapidly changing nature of genetic medicine, which creates intrinsic uncertainty about the appropriate level of service; and the heightened relevance of patient preferences in this context. Our recommendations call for needs-based planning studies to include an explicit definition of necessary care, to be flexible in considering nonhealth benefits, to err on the side of including services currently funded by health systems even when evidence about outcomes is limited, and to use scenario analysis and expert input to explore the impact of uncertainty about patients' preferences and future technologies on estimates of workforce requirements.

Examining interprofessional collaboration in oncogenetic service delivery models for hereditary cancers: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

In a context of limited genetic specialists, collaborative models have been proposed to ensure timely access to high quality oncogenetic services for individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility. Yet, extensive variability in the terminology used and lack of a clear understanding of how interprofessional collaboration is operationalised and evaluated currently constrains the development of a robust evidence base on the value of different approaches used to optimise access to these services. To fill in this knowledge gap, this scoping review aims to systematically unpack the nature and extent of collaboration proposed by these interventions, and synthesise the evidence available on their implementation, effectiveness and economic impact.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews, a comprehensive literature search will be conducted to identify peer-reviewed and grey literature on collaborative models used for adult patients with, or at increased risk of, hereditary breast, ovarian, colorectal and prostate cancers. An initial search was developed for Medline, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Cochrane and Web of Science on 13 June 2022 and will be complemented by searches in Google and relevant websites. Documents describing either the theory of change, planning, implementation and/or evaluation of these interventions will be considered for inclusion. Results will be summarised descriptively and used to compare relevant model characteristics and synthesise evidence available on their implementation, effectiveness and economic impact. This process is expected to guide the development of a definition and typology of collaborative models in oncogenetics that could help strengthen the knowledge base on these interventions. Moreover, because we will be mapping the existing evidence on collaborative models in oncogenetics, the proposed review will help us identify areas where additional research might be needed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research does not require ethics approval. Results from this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles and conferences.

A systematic review of geographical inequities for accessing clinical genomic and genetic services for non-cancer related rare disease

Place plays a significant role in our health. As genetic/genomic services evolve and are increasingly seen as mainstream, especially within the field of rare disease, it is important to ensure that where one lives does not impede access to genetic/genomic services. Our aim was to identify barriers and enablers of geographical equity in accessing clinical genomic or genetic services. We undertook a systematic review searching for articles relating to geographical access to genetic/genomic services for rare disease. Searching the databases Medline, EMBASE and PubMed returned 1803 papers. Screening led to the inclusion of 20 articles for data extraction. Using inductive thematic analysis, we identified four themes (i) Current service model design, (ii) Logistical issues facing clinicians and communities, (iii) Workforce capacity and capability and iv) Rural culture and consumer beliefs. Several themes were common to both rural and urban communities. However, many themes were exacerbated for rural populations due to a lack of clinician access to/relationships with genetic specialist staff, the need to provide more generalist services and a lack of genetic/genomic knowledge and skill. Additional barriers included long standing systemic service designs that are not fit for purpose due to historically ad hoc approaches to delivery of care. There were calls for needs assessments to clarify community needs. Enablers of geographically equitable care included the uptake of new innovative models of care and a call to raise both community and clinician knowledge and awareness to demystify the clinical offer from genetics/genomics services.

Rapid implementation of telegenetic services during the COVID-19 pandemic allowed continuing patient access, but not equally for all

Telegenetics is the use of telemedicine to deliver clinical genetic services to patients. During the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), telegenetics was essential for the Center of Personalized Genetic Healthcare (CPGH). This study reviews and analyzes in the context of the RE-AIM framework CPGH’s rapid implementation of telegenetics and its impact. We conducted a chart review of all out-patient telegenetics encounters scheduled in CPGH during the first five weeks of the COVID-19 PHE. Data analyzed included demographics; number of encounters scheduled; subspecialties and providers; outcome of encounter (completed, cancelled, no- show); and telehealth platform used. Data were compared to data for out-patient encounters in 2019. In the first five weeks of the COVID-19 PHE, 465 virtual visits were scheduled and 428 were completed, involving all six subspecialties and 86% of CPGH providers. The no-show plus cancellation rate was significantly lower than in 2019. By week four, CPGH’s virtual visit volume was 82% of its out-patient volume during the same time period in 2019. Patients over 60 and Black patients were significantly more likely to use phone-audio only appointments. CPGH rapidly implemented telegenetic services to continue providing care to patients. We identified success factors that enabled this. However, our analysis also identified a possible “digital divide” for Black and older patients.

IMPACT webinars: Improving Patient Access to genetic Counselling and Testing using webinars-the Alberta experience with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Growing demand for genetic counselling and testing has created a need for innovative service delivery models to provide quality care in an efficient manner. The goal of this study was to develop and evaluate a patient-facing webinar providing pre-test genetic counselling to individuals with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. A patient-facing webinar was developed and implemented between April 2019 and January 2021. It was evaluated using the Alberta Quality Matrix for Health framework, which considers the patient experience across the domains of effectiveness, appropriateness, acceptability, accessibility, and efficiency. The webinar group showed comparable scores to controls with regard to self-perceived knowledge and decisional conflict. The majority of patients reported that the webinar met their expectations and was an acceptable replacement for a 1:1 genetic counselling appointment. Finally, the webinar reduced genetic counsellor time to an average of 24 min per patient. Providing pre-test genetic counselling to index hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients via a group webinar has achieved a high quality of care, and optimized use of provider and space resources.

A Narrative Review of Implementing Precision Oncology in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in Emerging Countries

The therapeutic landscape of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has evolved considerably with the introduction of newer agents, such as poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors targeting DNA damage repair mutations. Combining and sequencing novel and existing therapies appropriately is necessary for optimizing the management of mCRPC and ensuring better treatment outcomes. The purpose of this review is to provide evidence-based answers to key clinical questions on treatment selection, treatment sequencing patterns, and factors influencing treatment decisions in the management of mCRPC in the era of PARP inhibitors. This article can also serve as a comprehensive guide to clinicians for optimizing genetic testing and counseling and management of patients with mCRPC. Although the PROfound study has validated the concept of PARP sensitivity across multiple genes associated with homologous recombination repair (HRR) in mCRPC and highlighted the importance of genomic testing in this at-risk patient population, it still remains unclear how patients with rarer HRR mutations will respond to PARP inhibitors. Therefore, real-world data obtained through registry-based randomized controlled trials in the future may help produce robust scientific evidence for supporting optimal clinician decision-making in the management of mCRPC.

Japanese women's reasons for accompaniment status to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer-focused genetic counseling

Genetic counselors routinely assess and understand clients' needs at the beginning of a session. Attending a genetic counseling session with or without companions is an objective sign that genetic counselors can easily notice. This study focused on clients' reasons for their accompaniment status for genetic counseling, which we categorize into attending with or without a companion(s). A questionnaire survey and interviews were conducted using snowball sampling, starting with the chief executive officer (CEO) of the Japanese hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) support group. Of 32 participants, 19 continued with an in-depth interview after answering the questionnaire. Five themes were identified from the interview: (1) personal confidence, (2) decision-making style, (3) family members' habits and time availability, (4) considerations and conflicts with family members, and (5) healthcare provider's suggestion. Our data suggested that the clients expected their companion(s) to play certain roles. This indicates that the reasons of accompaniment status will be helpful for genetic counselors to understand both clients' and their families' motivations, personalities, habits, and psychosocial backgrounds. In a high-context culture such as that of Japan, accompaniment status may be a helpful sign to understand clients' true worries. In addition, some companions may be future clients in genetic counseling, due to the genetic nature of the disease. In conclusion, our study indicated that it is important for genetic counselors to record accompaniment status before the initial genetic counseling and to pay attention to its reasons at the beginning of the session, which may lead them to understand the client's psychosocial background to facilitate better client-centered genetic counseling.

Genetic counseling in the time of COVID-19: The Philippine experience with telegenetics

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a significant challenge to healthcare professionals and health systems around the world, most notably the disruption of its service delivery. The typical work setting for most genetic counselors (GCs) is in a clinic or hospital. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, to help prevent the further spread of the virus, clinics and hospitals have restricted non-urgent in-person delivery of healthcare services, including genetic counseling. Patients' access to genetic counseling services has thus been limited, which prompted GCs in the country to utilize an alternative way to provide counseling through telegenetics. With the expansion of genetic services in the country, including the full implementation of expanded newborn screening, there is an increasing demand for genetic counseling and a growing need for telegenetics.

'Steep learning curves' to 'Smooth Sailing': A reappraisal of telegenetics amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed medical providers to trial telemedicine on a scale that lacks precedent. In genetic medicine, nearly overnight genetics providers were asked to transition to telemedicine platforms, irrespective of their previous experience with these modalities. This push to telegenetics prompted a reappraisal of the practice, as genetics providers learned firsthand about the feasibility, benefits, and drawbacks of telegenetics and telesupervision, all of which raise questions about the potential incorporation of these platforms beyond the pandemic. Adding to nascent literature on the transition to telegenetics amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to evaluate provider experiences and preferences with respect to telegenetics through qualitative semi-structured interviews with genetics providers. Nineteen providers from seven institutions participated in a semi-structured interview focused on the rapid shift to telegenetics, the benefits and drawbacks of the practice, experiences supervising students on virtual platforms, and providers' preferences. We employed a qualitative methodology so that providers working across diverse subspecialties could expand upon previously reported benefits and drawbacks. Qualitative data revealed the nuanced benefits of telegenetics which included overcoming geographic, spatial, and temporal barriers to care as well as greater involvement of patients' family members in sessions. In addition, the data indicated drawbacks related to additional tasks such as completing paperwork electronically and facilitating the collection of specimens from patients' homes. Interviews with providers from different subspecialties revealed how telegenetics may be uniquely useful for particular subspecialties, patient populations, or clinics for whom the aforementioned barriers are more significant. Providers reported that telesupervision made the provision of feedback to students more cumbersome and identified a number of methods for enriching the telesupervision experience. In keeping with previous research, most genetics providers appraised telegenetics as a valuable addition to patient care (68%, N = 13) and hoped to offer it as an option beyond the pandemic (63%, N = 12).

U.S. Genetic counselors' perceptions of inpatient genetic counseling: A valuable model for medically complex patients

Some genetic counselors (GCs) provide care in the inpatient setting. However, there is little literature on inpatient genetic counseling. The purpose of our study was to describe GC's experiences with the provision of genetic counseling services within inpatient care settings. Participants were recruited from respondents to a quantitative survey study on inpatient genetic counseling, which recruited GCs via the National Society of Genetic Counselors forum. GCs seeing at least five inpatients per year were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. The interview guide explored how and why their inpatient genetic counseling service started, workflow, and the perceived impact of the service. Interviews were transcribed, inductive analysis was used to develop a codebook, and thematic analysis was used to identify themes. Twenty-one inpatient genetic counselors participated in the study. Many participants worked primarily in outpatient roles with some inpatient duties (61.9%), while the rest worked primarily in inpatient roles (38.1%). Most participants have provided inpatient care for <2 years (66.7%). Many participants were involved in inpatient care across multiple specialties (66.7%), most frequently, pediatrics, neonatology, and neurology. Three themes were identified: (a) The convenience of inpatient genetic counseling leads to increased access to appropriate genetics care for medically complex patients and their inpatient healthcare providers, (b) the inpatient genetic counseling process and workflow is not standard and has multiple moving parts, and (c) genetic counselors are fulfilled by the diverse and unique opportunities of the inpatient care setting despite the emotional intensity of this environment. Participants described their inpatient care as valuable because it increases access to genetics services and adds genetics expertise to multidisciplinary inpatient teams. Overall, participants perceive inpatient genetic counseling as a way to bring genetics care directly to patients at a critical time point in their care, which benefits medically complex patients and their multidisciplinary inpatient team.

Videoconferencing to deliver genetics services: a systematic review of telegenetics in light of the COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced reorganization of clinical services to minimize face-to-face contact between patients and health-care providers. Specialist services, including clinical genetics, must consider methods of remote delivery including videoconferencing—termed telegenetics. This review evaluates the evidence for telegenetics and its applicability to future service development.

Methods

A systematic review of six databases was conducted to identify studies from 2005 onward using synchronous videoconferencing to deliver clinical genetics services. Included studies compared telegenetics to an alternative method or used a before and after design.

Results

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria (eight compared telegenetics to in-person consultations and three to telephone delivery). Patient satisfaction, genetic knowledge, and psychosocial outcomes were similar for in-person and telegenetic counseling. There was some evidence that telegenetics may be superior to telephone delivery for knowledge gain and reduction in anxiety and depression. There is limited evidence concerning the effect of telegenetics on provider satisfaction and behavioral outcomes. Conclusions are limited by at least moderate risk of bias in all evaluated studies and small sample sizes.

Conclusion

Across most outcomes measured, telegenetics had equivalent outcomes to in-person appointment; however, the extent to which the available evidence is applicable to longer-term use is debatable.

Benefits and limitations of telegenetics: A literature review

Telegenetics involves the use of technology (generally video conferencing) to remotely provide genetic services. A telegenetics platform is critical for those with limitations or vulnerabilities compromising their ability to attend clinic in-person, including individuals in rural areas. As the demand for remote genetics services increases, and amidst the COVID-19 pandemic with social distancing practices in place, we conducted a literature review to examine the benefits and limitations of telegenetics and explore the views of patients and health professionals utilizing telegenetics. Searches of the PubMed database identified 21 relevant primary studies for inclusion. The majority of studies found acceptability of telegenetics to be high among patients and health professionals and that telegenetics provided access to genetics services for underserved communities. The main benefits cited include cost-effectiveness and reduction in travel time for genetics services providing outreach clinics and patients who would otherwise travel long distances to access genetics. Patients appreciated the convenience of telegenetics including the reduced wait times, although a minority of patients reported their psychosocial needs were not adequately met. Eight studies compared outcomes between telegenetics and in-person services; findings suggested when comparing telegenetics patients to their in-person counterparts, telegenetics patients had a similar level of knowledge and understanding of genetics and similar psychological outcomes. Some studies reported challenges related to establishing rapport and reading and responding to verbal cues via telegenetics, while technical issues were not generally found to be a major limitation. Some service adaptations, for example, counseling strategies, may be required to successfully deliver telegenetics. Further research may be necessary to gather and examine data on how telegenetics outcomes compare to that of in-person genetic counseling and adapt services accordingly.

Outcomes of large panel genetic evaluation of breast cancer patients in a community-based cancer institute

INTRODUCTION

The use of restricted versus expanded panel genetic testing in breast cancer is controversial, with some institutions offering predominantly abbreviated gene panel testing. Our community program has offered larger panel testing for several years. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of large panel genetic testing and understand their impact on patient care.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our multi-institutional tumor registry was performed from 2015 to 2018 for patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer. Referral to genetic counseling and outcomes of panel testing were examined.

RESULTS

2237 patients met study criteria. Median age was 63 years (range 22-99). Eight hundred and thirty-eight patients (37.4%) were referred for genetic counseling. Of these patients, 509 (60.7%) had negative results, 108 (12.8%) had deleterious mutations (37 not included in abbreviated panels), and 221 (26.3%) had variants of undetermined significance (VUS). Bilateral mastectomy rates for patients with deleterious mutations were 53.7%, versus 31% for negative and 32.6% for VUS.

DISCUSSION

Large panel testing finds a significant number of actionable mutations. The increased identification of VUS did not result in higher mastectomy rates.

Experiences and attitudes of hereditary cancer screening patients in a consumer directed testing model

BACKGROUND

Since 2015, the Information is Power initiative has offered free and reduced cost hereditary cancer screening to the North Alabama population with a consumer-initiated model. Patients received pre-test and post-test education through a genetic counseling video. Positive results also received a call from a genetic counselor.

OBJECTIVE

We surveyed past Information is Power patients to assess if video education and electronic result delivery addressed the needs of a hereditary cancer screening population.

METHODS

An electronic survey was sent out to Information is Power patients who opted into research contact. The survey assessed participant knowledge, satisfaction with result delivery, and perceived uncertainty after receiving test results.

RESULTS

213 participants completed the survey. Eighteen percent of participants would have preferred individual communication with a genetics specialist about their results. Over 99 % of survey participants correctly interpreted a positive result, while 73 % correctly interpreted a negative result. Overall, participants were certain about the impact of their genetic test results.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These findings support a model of population genetic testing and genetic counseling that is sustainable while meeting the educational needs of most participants. Observed misconceptions surrounding a negative result should be highlighted in future population screening patient resources to meet patient needs.

Barriers and Facilitators to Genetic Service Delivery Models: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Advances in diagnostics testing and treatment of genetic conditions have led to increased demand for genetic services in the United States. At the same time, there is a shortage of genetic services professionals. Thus, understanding the models of service delivery currently in use can help increase access and improve outcomes for individuals identified with genetic conditions.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to provide an overview of barriers and facilitators to genetic service delivery models to inform future service delivery.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping literature review of the evidence to more fully understand barriers and facilitators around the provision of genetic services.

RESULTS

There were a number of challenges identified, including the limited number of genetics specialists, wait time for appointments, delivery of services by nongenetics providers, reimbursement, and licensure. The ways to address these challenges include the use of health information technology such as telehealth, group genetic counseling, provider-to-provider education, partnership models, and training; expanding genetic provider types; and embedding genetic counselors in clinical settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature review highlighted the need to expand access to genetic services. Ways to expand services include telehealth, technical assistance, and changing staffing models. In addition, using technology to improve knowledge among related professionals can help expand access.

Pregnant women's opinions toward prenatal pretest genetic counseling in Japan

In-person models of genetic counseling (GC) have been the common method in Japan for pregnant women to receive GC. However, recent increases in the number of pregnant women considering undergoing prenatal testing have made it challenging to retain individualized in-person care. To explore pregnant women’s opinions toward pretest GC models and the ideal time duration, a self-administered questionnaire survey was conducted for women at their first prenatal visit. A total of 114 valid respondents (93.4%) were included in the analyses. Of these, 80.7% of women preferred in-person GC, followed by classroom (9.6%), group (3.5%), and telegenetic-based GC (2.6%). Women with experience in undergoing prenatal testing significantly did not prefer in-person GC (p = 0.05). Sixty-two women (54.4%) preferred a duration of 15–29 min for pretest GC sessions, followed by 30–59 min (28.9%) and <15 min (14.9%). Women’s preference of ≥30 min in length was significantly associated with anhedonia, singleton pregnancies, acquaintance with people with trisomy 21, and awareness of prenatal testing. Women who were unaware of the need for agreement with the partner for prenatal testing and who did not know the average life expectancy of a trisomy 21 patient significantly preferred <15 min in length over other durations. While the majority of women preferred in-person GC for <30 min, their preferences varied by their background characteristics, experiences, attitudes, and knowledge. These findings will help establish a prenatal GC system offering a choice of GC models in Japan; however, further large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Stay at home: implementation and impact of virtualising cancer genetic services during COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid adoption of virtual clinic processes and healthcare delivery. Herein, we examine the impact of virtualising genetics services at Canada’s largest cancer centre. A retrospective review was conducted to evaluate relevant metrics during the 12 weeks prior to and during virtual care, including referral and clinic volumes, patient wait times and genetic testing uptake. The number of appointments and new patients seen were maintained during virtual care. Likewise, there was a significant increase in the number of patients offered testing during virtual care who did not provide a blood sample (176/180 (97.7%) vs 180/243 (74.1%); p<0.001), and a longer median time from the date of pretest genetic counselling to the date a sample was given (0 vs 11 days; p<0.001). Referral volumes significantly decreased during virtual care (35 vs 22; p<0.001), which was accompanied by a decreased median wait time for first appointment (55 days vs 30 days; p<0.001). The rapid virtualisation of cancer genetic services allowed the genetics clinic to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic without compromising clinical volumes or access to genetic testing. There was a decrease in referral volumes and uptake of genetic testing, which may be attributable to pandemic-related clinical restrictions.

Implementing innovative service delivery models in genetic counseling: a qualitative analysis of facilitators and barriers

Given the increasing demand for genetic counseling, implementation of innovative service delivery models (SDMs) has been proposed to improve access and increase the efficiency of genetic counseling services. This study investigated the key considerations in genetic counseling practices that impact the decision to implement innovative SDMs, as well as barriers and facilitators to implementation. A cross-sectional, qualitative research design was employed, using focus groups. Genetic counselors (GCs) were recruited from respondents to an online survey about SDMs and by posting an invitation to the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) listserv. A total of 30 participants participated in either in-person (n = 3) or online (n = 5) focus groups, facilitated by members of the Service Delivery Model subcommittee of the NSGC Access and Service Delivery Committee. Transcribed audio and written notes from the focus groups were coded, utilizing an inductive thematic analysis method. Five overarching themes that impact decisions to implement and use innovative SDMs were identified: (a) Patient volume and efficiency are key motivators in trying innovative SDMs; (b) the decision to change is facilitated by available resources; (c) the implementation of innovative SDMs is multidimensional and complex process; (d) there is concern about the impact on patient-provider relationships with the utilization of innovative SDMs; and (e) measuring outcomes of innovative SDM facilitates acquisition of additional resources and support. Approaches to innovative SDM selection and implementation vary by institution needs, resources, and population as demonstrated by the variety of approaches to similar barriers. Outcomes related to the implementation of innovative SDMs in genetic counseling practice should be measured to demonstrate the value of innovative genetic counseling SDMs, improvement of access to care, and to justify need for additional resources to support implementation of these models.

Genetic counseling service delivery models: A study of genetic counselors' interests, needs, and barriers to implementation

As demand for genetic services grows, innovative genetic counseling service delivery models (SDMs) are needed. However, there is limited research on the barriers and needs of genetic counselors (GCs) interested in implementing new SDMs into their practice. In fall 2017, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Access and Service Delivery Committee's SDM Subcommittee sent an online survey to the NSGC membership regarding the use of SDMs, which aimed to update the understanding of current SDM use and how this has changed over time. The survey included several questions with open-response components assessing the need for new SDMs and barriers to implementation. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify common themes. Among 517 usable responses (16% response rate), more than half (54.4%) of respondents indicated their current SDM was inadequate to address the patient need in their area. Nearly two-thirds (64.8%) indicated they were in the process of or planning to make changes to their SDM, although 40.6% did not have a specific timeline. Three major themes related to expanding access, reimbursement for services, and lack of support were identified from responses to questions about implementation of additional SDMs. Access included subthemes of geographic and physical location limitations, addressing long wait times, and the need to expand services. Reimbursement for services included issues with billing, genetic counselor licensure, and limitations due to the need for physician involvement in billing. The lack of support was evident with issues related to understaffing; difficulty gaining support at the administrative, institutional, or physician level; time constraints; and funding concerns. This study shows that GCs need education, tools, and resources to overcome barriers in implementing new or adapting current SDMs, and there is a need for policy change, including new billing and coverage models.

The Community Oncology and Academic Medical Center Alliance in the Age of Precision Medicine: Cancer Genetics and Genomics Considerations

Recent public policy, governmental regulatory and economic trends have motivated the establishment and deepening of community health and academic medical center alliances. Accordingly, community oncology practices now deliver a significant portion of their oncology care in association with academic cancer centers. In the age of precision medicine, this alliance has acquired critical importance; novel advances in nucleic acid sequencing, the generation and analysis of immense data sets, the changing clinical landscape of hereditary cancer predisposition and ongoing discovery of novel, targeted therapies challenge community-based oncologists to deliver molecularly-informed health care. The active engagement of community oncology practices with academic partners helps with meeting these challenges; community/academic alliances result in improved cancer patient care and provider efficacy. Here, we review the community oncology and academic medical center alliance. We examine how practitioners may leverage academic center precision medicine-based cancer genetics and genomics programs to advance their patients' needs. We highlight a number of project initiatives at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center that seek to optimize community oncology and academic cancer center precision medicine interactions.

The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review

As genetics becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of health care and the use of complex genetic tests continues to grow, the clinical genetics workforce will likely face greatly increased demand for its services. To inform strategic planning by health-care systems to prepare to meet this future demand, we performed a scoping review of the genetics workforce in high-income countries, summarizing all available evidence on its composition and capacity published between 2010 and 2019. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PAIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources were searched, resulting in 162 unique studies being included in the review. The evidence presented includes the composition and size of the workforce, the scope of practice for genetics and nongenetics specialists, the time required to perform genetics-related tasks, case loads of genetics providers, and opportunities to increase efficiency and capacity. Our results indicate that there is currently a shortage of genetics providers and that there is a lack of consensus about the appropriate boundaries between the scopes of practice for genetics and nongenetics providers. Moreover, the results point to strategies that may be used to increase productivity and efficiency, including alternative service delivery models, streamlining processes, and the automation of tasks.

Public perception of predictive cancer genetic testing and research in Oregon

The potential for using widespread genetic testing to inform health care has become a viable option, particularly for heritable cancers. Yet, little is known about how to effectively communicate the benefits and risks of both personal genetic testing and participation in biorepositories that aid scientific advancements. Nationwide efforts are engaging communities in large genetic studies to better estimate the population-wide prevalence of heritable cancers but have been met with hesitance or declination to participate in some communities. To successfully engage an Oregon population in longitudinal research that includes predictive genetic testing for pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with an increased risk for cancer, researchers conducted 35 focus groups (two of which were held in Spanish) in 24 of Oregon's 36 counties to better understand knowledge and attitudes related to genetic testing and willingness to participate in longitudinal genetic research. A total of 203 adults (mean = 45.6 years; range 18-88), representing a range of education levels and prior knowledge of genetic research, participated in the focus groups. The majority (85%) of participants reported personal or family diagnoses of cancer (e.g., self, family, friends). A majority (87%) also reported a strong interest in cancer genetic testing and receiving genetic information about themselves. Nearly all focus groups (94%, 33 of 35 sites) included participant discussion citing their families (e.g., children, close relatives, and extended family members) as key motivators for participation in genetic research. For example, participants reported interest in increasing personal knowledge about their own and their families' cancer risks in order to respond proactively, if a pathogenic variant was found. While most focus groups (94%, 33 of 35 sites) included participant discussion describing barriers to predictive genetic, testing such as concerns about outcomes, the desire to learn about health risks in oneself mitigated or outweighed those fears for many participants. Other commonly reported concerns were related to potential mistrust of insurance companies, researchers, or institutions, or lack of knowledge about genetics, genetic testing, or genetic research. Participants, particularly in rural areas, highlighted critical factors for research recruitment, such as trust, personal interaction, public education about genetic research, and clear communication about study goals and processes. Our statewide findings reflect that public interest in predictive cancer genetic testing and cancer genetic research can surpass lack of knowledge of the complex topics, particularly when benefits for self and family are emphasized and when study considerations are well articulated.

The current state of genetic counseling assistants in the United States

Genetic counseling assistants (GCAs) have the potential to address the high demand for genetic counselors by promoting task-sharing, increasing genetic counselor efficiency, and allowing for higher level duties to be optimized by genetic counselors. However, little research has been published on the role of GCAs. This study explored current tasks of GCAs in the United States, the appropriateness of those tasks, the perceived impact on the profession, and how these findings compared between genetic counselors with and without GCAs. Full members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) with and without experience working with GCAs were recruited via the NSGC Student Research listserv to complete an online survey and 271 surveys were analyzed. Participants working in both clinical and laboratory settings and in all primary specialties reported working with GCAs (n = 131); GCAs were reported to frequently perform clerical tasks but were involved less often in clinical tasks such as calling patients with genetic test results. There was no difference between participants with GCAs and those without GCAs in tasks they reported GCAs are or may be performing, yet participants without GCAs believed GCAs performed more tasks on average than those with GCAs reported (p < 0.001). Participants did not differ on the appropriateness of tasks, reporting clerical tasks as more appropriate for GCAs than clinically involved tasks, with the exception of calling patients with variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results in which more participants working with GCAs reported it as an appropriate task (13%) than those without GCAs (4%; p < 0.05). Review of open-ended responses revealed themes pertaining to primary limitations, benefits, and concerns of the GCA role. The most commonly reported concern about GCAs was their poorly defined scope of practice (n = 182). Other reported limitations included a heavy workload, lack of training, and lack of experience for GCAs while the benefits of working with GCAs included increased time available for higher level duties, patient volumes, and efficiency. These data provide genetic counselors, their institutions, and the NSGC with a more generalizable understanding of current GCA roles on a national level, across specialties. Additionally, these data may help establish a scope of practice for GCAs by creating a baseline job description for genetic counselors and their institutions interested in implementing a GCA into their practice to increase patient access to genetic counseling services. It is recommended that further research objectively quantify the value added by GCAs using efficiency metrics and further clarify the role of laboratory GCAs.

A Comprehensive Program Enabling Effective Delivery of Regional Genetic Counseling

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the utility of a comprehensive program involving management-based evidence, telemedicine, and patient navigation to provide genetic counseling services for patients with ovarian and breast cancer across a geographically large health care system.

METHODS

We identified all patients with newly diagnosed ovarian and breast cancer in our health care system from January 2013 to December 2015 through the cancer registry. Referral characteristics and testing outcomes were recorded for each year and compared using the χ or Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

Because the implementation of this program, the number of new ovarian cancer cases remained constant (109-112 cases/year) but patients referred for genetic counseling increased annually from 37% to 43% to 96% (P < 0.05). The percentage of ovarian cancer patients who underwent genetic testing increased annually from 24% to 27% to 53% (P < 0.05). The number of new breast cancer patients was constant (1543-1638 cases/year). The percentage of patients with triple negative breast cancer referred for genetic counseling rose from 69% in 2013 to 91% in 2015; the percentage of patients who underwent testing increased annually from 59% to 86% (P < 0.05). Of women with breast cancer diagnosed at less than 45 years of age, 78% to 85% were referred for genetic counseling across this period; the percentage of patients who underwent testing increased annually from 66% to 82% (P < 0.05). Patient navigation was initiated and was available to all patients in the system during this period. Telemedicine consults were performed in 118 breast/ovarian patients (6%) during this period.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive program may improve access to effective genetic counseling services in patients with ovarian and breast cancer despite geographic barriers.

Underdiagnosis of Hereditary Breast Cancer: Are Genetic Testing Guidelines a Tool or an Obstacle?

PURPOSE

An estimated 10% of breast and ovarian cancers result from hereditary causes. Current testing guidelines for germ line susceptibility genes in patients with breast carcinoma were developed to identify carriers of BRCA1/ 2 variants and have evolved in the panel-testing era. We evaluated the capability of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to identify patients with breast cancer with pathogenic variants in expanded panel testing.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved multicenter prospective registry was initiated with 20 community and academic sites experienced in cancer genetic testing and counseling. Eligibility criteria included patients with a previously or newly diagnosed breast cancer who had not undergone either single- or multigene testing. Consecutive patients 18 to 90 years of age were consented and underwent an 80-gene panel test. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant electronic case report forms collected information on patient demographics, diagnoses, phenotypes, and test results.

RESULTS

More than 1,000 patients were enrolled, and data records for 959 patients were analyzed; 49.95% met NCCN criteria, and 50.05% did not. Overall, 8.65% of patients had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant. Of patients who met NCCN guidelines with test results, 9.39% had a P/LP variant. Of patients who did not meet guidelines, 7.9% had a P/LP variant. The difference in positive results between these groups was not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test P = .4241).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that nearly half of patients with breast cancer with a P/LP variant with clinically actionable and/or management guidelines in development are missed by current testing guidelines. We recommend that all patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer undergo expanded panel testing.

Readiness of clinical genetic healthcare professionals to provide genomic medicine: An Australian census

We aimed to determine capacity and readiness of Australian clinical genetic healthcare professionals to provide genomic medicine. An online survey was administered to individuals with genetic counseling or clinical genetics qualifications in Australia. Data collected included: education, certification, continuing professional development (CPD), employment, and genetic versus genomic clinical practice. Of the estimated 630 clinical genetic healthcare professionals in Australia, 354 completed the survey (56.2% response rate). Explanatory interviews were conducted with 5.5% of the genetic counselor respondents. Those working clinically reported being involved in aspects of whole exome or genome sequencing (48.6% genetic counselors, 88.6% clinical geneticists). Most genetic counselors (74.2%) and clinical geneticists (87.0%) had attended genomics CPD in the last two years, with 61.0% and 39.1% self-funding, respectively. Genetic counselors desire broad involvement in genomics, including understanding classifying and interpreting results to better counsel patients. The majority of respondents (89.9%) were satisfied with their job and 91.6% planned to work in genetics until retirement. However, 14.1% of the genetic counselors in clinical roles and 24.6% of the clinical geneticists planned to retire within 10 years. This is the first national audit of clinical genetic healthcare professionals, revealing the Australian workforce is motivated and prepared to embrace new models to deliver genomic medicine but consideration of education and training is required to meet demand.

Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study

Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in-person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in-person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in-person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in-person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in-person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer-specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer-specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in-person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in-person disclosure should be honored when possible.

Knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers towards genetic testing across three rural Illinois communities

Genetic testing is becoming more prevalent in detecting risk and guiding cancer treatment in our increasingly personalized medicine model. However, few studies have examined underserved populations' perceptions of genetic testing, especially those of rural dwelling populations. We asked residents of three rural communities to complete a self-administered survey gauging their knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers for genetic testing. 64.8% of participants of the overall study completed the survey. Most participants were aware of genetic testing for cancer screening (69.0%) and would likely share results with their family (88.5% if it indicated low risk, 85.9% for high risk). Some barriers were noted, including genetic testing not offered in a clinic nearby (46.9%), insurance company knowing the results (54.0%), cost (49.1%), and no accessible genetic counselors with whom to discuss results (45.6%). Our rural participants were generally knowledgeable about genetic testing, but this may not be reflective of all rural populations. Opportunities exist to mitigate use barriers, expand the utilization of telehealth services and regulatory agency-approved assays, and increase knowledge regarding privacy and protections offered by statute, such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (US) and General Data Protection Regulation (Europe).

Evaluating and improving the implementation of a community-based hereditary cancer screening program

Healthcare disparities exist in the provision of cancer genetic services including genetic counseling and testing related to BRCA1/2 mutations. To address this in a community health setting a screening tool was created to identify high-risk women. This study evaluates the implementation of the tool and identifies opportunities for improved cancer genetic screening, including regular clinician education. A mixed-method approach was used to evaluate clinician utilization of the screening tool at Planned Parenthood affiliates. Novel surveys that evaluated acceptance and implementation were administered to clinicians (n = 14) and semi-structured interviews (n = 6) were used to explore clinicians' perspectives and identify gaps in its utilization. Educational modules that addressed gaps were developed, implemented, and evaluated using a post-education survey (n = 8). Clinicians reported confidence in administering and interpreting the screening tool, but reported less confidence in their knowledge of cancer genetics and ability to connect clients with genetic counseling and testing (p = .003). Educational modules resulted in significant gains in clinician knowledge on genetic topics (p < .05) and increased self-reported confidence in connecting clients with genetic services. The modules reinforced the belief that genetic testing is beneficial for patients at increased risk (p = .001) and is important to inform subsequent medical management (p = .027). While building community clinicians' capacity to connect clients with genetic services is crucial, it is challenged by knowledge and confidence gaps in discussions of genetic services with clients. Consistent genetic-focused education with non-genetic clinicians can improve confidence and knowledge, enabling a more effective screening program in community health settings.

Genetic Counseling and Testing in a Community Setting: Quality, Access, and Efficiency

There is an increasing need for genetic counseling and testing for individuals diagnosed with cancer, as treatment may be affected by the results. In addition, the identification of individuals before a diagnosis of cancer allows for optimal surveillance and early detection and prevention of cancer. With the recognition that as much as 10% of all cancers are hereditary, there is a growing need to improve access to genetic counseling and genetic testing, both before and at the time of diagnosis. This article focuses on models of identifying at-risk patients, including underserved communities; providing genetic counseling and testing in community practices; using telehealth; and collaborating with nongenetics health care providers and technological solutions to maximize efficiency and access.

Next-Generation Service Delivery: A Scoping Review of Patient Outcomes Associated with Alternative Models of Genetic Counseling and Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer

The combination of increased referral for genetic testing and the current shortage of genetic counselors has necessitated the development and implementation of alternative models of genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer assessment. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the patient outcomes that are associated with alternative models of genetic testing and genetic counseling for hereditary cancer, including germline-only and tumor testing models. Seven databases were searched, selecting studies that were: (1) full-text articles published ≥2007 or conference abstracts published ≥2015, and (2) assessing patient outcomes of an alternative model of genetic counseling or testing. A total of 79 publications were included for review and synthesis. Data-charting was completed using a data-charting form that was developed by the study team for this review. Seven alternative models were identified, including four models that involved a genetic counselor: telephone, telegenic, group, and embedded genetic counseling models; and three models that did not: mainstreaming, direct, and tumor-first genetic testing models. Overall, these models may be an acceptable alternative to traditional models on knowledge, patient satisfaction, psychosocial measures, and the uptake of genetic testing; however, particular populations may be better served by traditional in-person genetic counseling. As precision medicine initiatives continue to advance, institutions should consider the implementation of new models of genetic service delivery, utilizing a model that will best serve the needs of their unique patient populations.

Implementation of a Carrier Screening Program in a High-Risk Undergraduate Student Population Using Digital Marketing, Online Education, and Telehealth

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Access to preconception carrier screening, which provides at-risk couples with more reproductive options, is critically important. To address this need in the Jewish community, genetic counselors at Emory University launched JScreen (www.jscreen.org), a national online genetic disease education and carrier screening program. To reach the preconception demographic, JScreen initiated a study evaluating the impact of marketing and education on knowledge and screening activity on college campuses.

METHODS

Students at 10 universities were targeted with a marketing campaign designed for this initiative. Those who elected screening were provided pre-test video education designed for the study. Success was assessed through enrollment in testing, comparison of pre- and post-education knowledge quizzes, and patient satisfaction surveys evaluating genetic counseling and the JScreen process.

RESULTS

A total of 1,794 participants were enrolled. Over 99% of those screened were not pregnant. Knowledge quiz scores improved significantly post-education, and patient satisfaction was over 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggested that the use of targeted marketing helped promote preconception screening in this population. The study demonstrated that video education was effective in educating participants about benefits and limitations of testing. Also, the use of telehealth technology facilitated access to professional genetic counseling services. This study serves as a model for future public health initiatives.

Understanding of multigene test results among males undergoing germline testing for inherited prostate cancer: Implications for genetic counseling

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCA) is rising, with limited insights regarding genetic counseling (GC) needs of males. Genetic Evaluation of Men (GEM) is a prospective multigene testing study for inherited PCA. Men undergoing GC were surveyed on knowledge of cancer risk and genetics (CRG) and understanding of personal GT results to identify GC needs.

METHODS

GEM participants with or high-risk for PCA were recruited. Pre-test GC was in-person, with video and handout, or via telehealth. Post-test disclosure was in-person, by phone, or via telehealth. Clinical and family history data were obtained from participant surveys and medical records. Participants completed measures of knowledge of CRG, literacy, and numeracy pre-test and post-test. Understanding of personal genetic results was assessed post-test. Factors associated with knowledge of CRG and understanding of personal genetic results were examined using multivariable linear regression or McNemar's test.

RESULTS

Among 109 men who completed pre- and post-GT surveys, multivariable analysis revealed family history meeting hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) criteria was significantly predictive of higher baseline knowledge (P = 0.040). Of 101 men who responded definitively regarding understanding of results, 13 incorrectly reported their result (McNemar's P < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with discordance between reported and actual results included having a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) (P < 0.001) and undergoing GC via pre-test video and post-test phone disclosure (P = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

While meeting criteria for HCS was associated with higher knowledge of CRG, understanding of personal GT results was lacking among a subset of males with VUS. A more exploratory finding was lack of understanding of results among men who underwent GC utilizing video and phone. Studies optimizing GC strategies for males undergoing multigene testing for inherited PCA are warranted.

Early Outcome Data Assessing Utility of a Post-Test Genomic Counseling Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Precision Health

Information on patients’ preferences is essential to guide the development of more efficient genomic counseling service delivery models. We examined patient preferences in the context of use of a post-test genomic counseling framework on patients (n = 44) with chronic disease receiving online test reports for eight different diseases and one drug-response result. We also explored patients’ disease risk awareness, recall of test report information, and confidence in knowing what to do with their test results. Prior to the post-test genomic counseling session, all participants viewed at least one test report; 81.6% of available test reports were reviewed in total. Participants requested more phone (36) than in-person counseling sessions (8), and phone sessions were shorter (mean 29.1 min; range 12–75 min) than in-person sessions (mean 52.8 min; range 23–85 min). A total of 182 test reports were discussed over the course of 44 counseling sessions (mean 4.13, range 1–9). Thirty-six (81.8%) participants requested assessment for additional medical/family history concerns. In exploring patient experiences of disease risk awareness and recall, no significant differences were identified in comparison to those of participants (n = 199) that had received in-person post-test genomic counseling in a parent study randomized controlled trial (RCT). In summary, a novel post-test genomic counseling framework allowed for a tailored approach to counseling based on the participants’ predetermined choices.

Evolution of genetic assessment for BRCA-associated gynaecologic malignancies: a Canadian multisociety roadmap

The landscape of genetic testing in ovarian cancer patients has changed dramatically in recent years. The therapeutic benefits of poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in treatment of BRCA1/2-related ovarian cancers has resulted in an increased demand and urgency for genetic testing results, while technological developments have led to widespread use of multi-gene cancer panels and development of tumour testing protocols. Traditional genetic counselling models are no longer sustainable and must evolve to match the rapid evolution of genetic testing technologies and developments in personalized medicine. Recently, representatives from oncology, clinical genetics, molecular genetics, pathology, and patient advocacy came together to create a national multi-disciplinary Canadian consortium. By aligning stakeholder interests, the BRCA Testing to Treatment (BRCA TtoT) Community of Practice aims to develop a national strategy for tumour and germline BRCA1/2 testing and genetic counselling in women with ovarian cancer. This article serves to provide an overview of the recent evolution of genetic assessment for BRCA1/2-associated gynecologic malignancies and outline a Canadian roadmap to facilitate change, improve genetic testing rates, and ultimately improve outcomes for hereditary ovarian cancer patients and their families.