Models of service delivery for cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling

Uptake of Cancer Genetic Services for Chatbot vs Standard-of-Care Delivery Models: The BRIDGE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Increasing numbers of unaffected individuals could benefit from genetic evaluation for inherited cancer susceptibility. Automated conversational agents (ie, chatbots) are being developed for cancer genetics contexts; however, randomized comparisons with standard of care (SOC) are needed.

Objective

To examine whether chatbot and SOC approaches are equivalent in completion of pretest cancer genetic services and genetic testing.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This equivalence trial (Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services [BRIDGE] randomized clinical trial) was conducted between August 15, 2020, and August 31, 2023, at 2 US health care systems (University of Utah Health and NYU Langone Health). Participants were aged 25 to 60 years, had had a primary care visit in the previous 3 years, were eligible for cancer genetic evaluation, were English or Spanish speaking, had no prior cancer diagnosis other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, had no prior cancer genetic counseling or testing, and had an electronic patient portal account.

Intervention

Participants were randomized 1:1 at the patient level to the study groups at each site. In the chatbot intervention group, patients were invited in a patient portal outreach message to complete a pretest genetics education chat. In the enhanced SOC control group, patients were invited to complete an SOC pretest appointment with a certified genetic counselor.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were completion of pretest cancer genetic services (ie, pretest genetics education chat or pretest genetic counseling appointment) and completion of genetic testing. Equivalence hypothesis testing was used to compare the study groups.

Results

This study included 3073 patients (1554 in the chatbot group and 1519 in the enhanced SOC control group). Their mean (SD) age at outreach was 43.8 (9.9) years, and most (2233 of 3063 [72.9%]) were women. A total of 204 patients (7.3%) were Black, 317 (11.4%) were Latinx, and 2094 (75.0%) were White. The estimated percentage point difference for completion of pretest cancer genetic services between groups was 2.0 (95% CI, -1.1 to 5.0). The estimated percentage point difference for completion of genetic testing was -1.3 (95% CI, -3.7 to 1.1). Analyses suggested equivalence in the primary outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of the BRIDGE equivalence trial support the use of chatbot approaches to offer cancer genetic services. Chatbot tools can be a key component of sustainable and scalable population health management strategies to enhance access to cancer genetic services.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03985852.

Development and preliminary evaluation of a genetics education booklet for retinoblastoma

BACKGROUND

Parents and survivors of retinoblastoma often hold misconceptions about the disease and desire more extensive and detailed information about its genetic nature. The aim of this study was to co-develop and evaluate a genetic education booklet for retinoblastoma.

METHODS

A human-centered design approach was employed, in which the study team consulted with clinician and patient knowledge user groups to design, produce, and refine an educational booklet. Over three phases of consultation, the study team met with each knowledge user group to review booklet prototypes and collect feedback for its further refinement. A preliminary evaluation using quantitative and qualitative methods was completed with six mothers of children with retinoblastoma.

RESULTS

The iterative, phased design process produced an educational booklet rich in images and stories, with complex genetic topics described in simplified terms. The preliminary evaluation showed an average improvement in knowledge between pre- and post-test questionnaire of 10%. Participants were satisfied with content and comprehensiveness of the information included in the booklet.

CONCLUSION

A novel educational tool for families affected by retinoblastoma was developed through collaboration with health care and patient knowledge users. Preliminary evaluation results indicate it is feasible to implement and study the booklet in a prospective, pragmatic trial to evaluate its efficacy.

Integration of Germline Genetic Testing Into Routine Clinical Practice for Patients With Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for all patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but the traditional clinical genetics infrastructure is limited in addressing the unique needs of this population. We describe the integration of point of care (POC) GT into routine clinical practice for all patients with PDAC at an academic medical center.

METHODS

We developed a clinical POC workflow that leverages electronic health record (EHR) tools and behavioral nudges to enhance the sustainability and scalability of our previously described research-based POC model. For each of the research and clinical POC cohorts, we calculated the percentage of eligible patients who underwent GT. We used Wilcoxon rank-sum and Pearson's chi-squared tests to compare patients who did and did not undergo GT. We conducted surveys among oncology clinicians to evaluate the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the clinical POC model.

RESULTS

The research POC cohort included 905 patients, of whom 694 (76.7%) underwent GT. The clinical POC cohort included 148 patients, of whom 126 (85.1%) underwent GT. Patients who underwent GT in the research POC cohort were significantly younger (median age, 67.0 v 70.9 years; P = .031) and more likely to be White (82.1% v 68.7%; P < .001) and commercially insured (41.8% v 28.0%; P < .001) compared with those who did not; there were no significant differences between GT groups in the clinical POC cohort. Oncology clinicians found the clinical POC model to be acceptable (mean 4.4/5), appropriate (4.6/5), feasible (4.0/5), and have a positive impact on their patients (4.9/5).

CONCLUSION

A clinical POC model leveraging EHR tools and behavioral nudges is acceptable, appropriate, feasible, and associated with a >85% GT rate among patients with PDAC.

Mapping inter-professional collaboration in oncogenetics: Results from a scoping review

Inter-professional collaboration could improve timely access and quality of oncogenetic services. Here, we present the results of a scoping review conducted to systematically identify collaborative models available, unpack the nature and extent of collaboration proposed, synthesize evidence on their implementation and evaluation, and identify areas where additional research is needed. A comprehensive search was conducted in four journal indexing databases on June 13th, 2022, and complemented with searches of the grey literature and citations. Screening was conducted by two independent reviewers. Eligible documents included those describing either the theory of change, planning, implementation and/or evaluation of collaborative oncogenetic models. 165 publications were identified, describing 136 unique interventions/studies on oncogenetic models with somewhat overlapping collaborative features. Collaboration appears to be mostly inter-professional in nature, often taking place during risk assessment and pre-testing genetic counseling. Yet, most publications provide very limited information on their collaborative features, and only a few studies have set out to formally evaluate them. Better quality research is needed to comprehensively examine and make conclusions regarding the value of collaboration in this oncogenetics. We propose a definition, logic model, and typology of collaborative oncogenetic models to strengthen future planning, implementation, and evaluation in this field.

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.

Cancer genetic counselling for hereditary breast cancer in the era of precision oncology

A relevant percentage of breast cancers (BCs) are tied to pathogenetic (P)/likely pathogenetic (LP) variants in predisposing genes. The knowledge of P/LP variants is an essential element in the management of BC patients since the first diagnosis because it influences surgery and subsequent oncological treatments and follow-up. Moreover, patients with metastatic BCs can benefit from personalized treatment if carriers of P/LP in BRCA1/2 genes. Multigene panels allow the identification of other predisposing genes with an impact on management. Cascade genetic testing for healthy family members allows personalized preventive strategies. Here, we review the advances and the challenges of Cancer Genetic Counseling (CGC). We focus on the area of oncology directed to hereditary BC management describing the peculiar way to lead CGC and how CGC changes over time. The authors describe the impact of genetic testing by targeted approach or universal approach on the management of BC according to the stage at diagnosis. Moreover, they describe the burden of CGC and testing and future perspectives to widely offer testing. A new perspective is needed for models of service delivery of CGC and testing, beyond formal genetic counselling. A broader genetic test can be quickly usable in clinical practice for comprehensive BC management and personalized prevention in the era of precision oncology.

Telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk: Patient predictors of differential outcomes

PURPOSE

Telegenetics has become the predominant mode of cancer genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify potential patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic genetic counseling.

METHODS

We analyzed post-counseling (pre-result disclosure) follow-up data from a randomized noninferiority trial of a telephone genetic counseling versus usual care genetic counseling. Among 669 randomized participants, 600 completed pre-test counseling and 568 completed a 2-week follow-up assessment before receiving test results. In this analysis, we focused on genetic counseling outcomes (knowledge, decisional conflict, and distress). In multivariate models controlling for bivariate predictors of these outcomes, we tested our a priori hypotheses that pre-counseling numeracy, perceived stress, and race/ethnicity would moderate the outcomes of telephone genetic counseling versus usual care.

RESULTS

Only numeracy significantly moderated associations between mode of genetic counseling and outcomes. Higher numeracy was associated with higher post-counseling knowledge following telephone genetic counseling (p < 0.001), but not usual care (p = 0.450). Higher numeracy was also associated with lower distress following telephone genetic counseling (p = 0.009) but not usual care (p = 0.16). Neither perceived stress nor race/ethnicity exhibited differential impacts on telephone genetic counseling versus usual care (ps > 0.20).

CONCLUSION

Although high numeracy was associated with higher levels of knowledge following telegenetic counseling, we did not identify any clinically significant patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic counseling. These results lend further confidence to the broad use of telegenetics.

Evaluating Patient Experience in a Multidisciplinary Breast Cancer Clinic: A Prospective Study

Background: Multidisciplinary clinics (MDCs) are a care model in which patients see several physicians across specialties and/or other allied health professionals in a single appointment in a shared space. This study sought to better understand patients' experiences with breast cancer (BC) MDC. Methods: A total of 429 patients diagnosed with BC and seen in a MDC between November 2020 and November 2021 were invited to participate in a patient experience survey. Results: In total, 116 patient respondents (27%) with representative demographics described their experience. Most patients report feeling "somewhat prepared" for the BC MDC experience (67%, median = 3.7, interquartile range [IQR] = 1.9), but with variability. The major areas of positive feedback were that the MDC was convenient (89.3%), efficient use of time (65.2%), and a good way to get questions answered (65.2%). Major criticisms included that the MDC was overwhelming (16.1%) and/or too long (4.5%). When asked to rate the top three satisfaction areas of MDCs, patients chose seeing multiple providers during a single visit (80.4%), communication about the process before and throughout the MDC (48.2%), and inclusivity of their support system (38.4%). The highest rated dissatisfiers were the volume of information presented (42.9%) and patients' emotional comfort (anxiety/stress) during MDC appointment (30.2%). Overall, 83% of patients with BC rate the MDC experience as excellent (median = 4.8, IQR = 0.9) and would be "very likely" to recommend BC MDC (median = 4.8, IQR = 0.9). Conclusion: Patients value seeing multiple providers simultaneously in an environment inclusive of their support systems, which is described as convenient and efficient. Improving emotional distress is a key opportunity to improve patient experience.

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.

Development of a web-based, theory-guided narrative intervention for women at elevated risk for breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development of a web-based, theory-guided narrative intervention that replaces conventional pre-test genetic counseling for women at elevated breast cancer risk.

METHODS

We used an iterative process that was guided by health behavior theory and feedback from multiple stakeholder groups including: 1) content input from genetic experts; 2) study team input; 3) review of video storyboards, video example, study logo, recruitment materials, post-test patient preference counseling survey, and additional study surveys; 4) video series development; and 5) intervention review and finalization of study-related materials.

RESULTS

The intervention is patient-centered providing convenience and an opportunity for an individual's preferences for post-test counseling delivery. The intervention's efficacy is being determined in a randomized controlled trial compared to conventional genetic counseling for adherence to recommended guidelines and changes in knowledge, perception of breast cancer risk, breast cancer-specific worry, and satisfaction with counseling.

CONCLUSION

If efficacious, the intervention may improve the delivery of the genetic testing and counseling process, inform best practices, and reduce the genetic counseling workforce burden.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The developed intervention has the potential to improve the genetic testing and counseling experience for women at elevated risk for breast cancer, inform best practices, and reduce genetic counseling workforce burden.

Mainstreaming germline genetic testing for patients with pancreatic cancer increases uptake

Germline genetic testing is recommended for all patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) but uptake rates are low. We implemented a mainstreaming program in oncology clinics to increase testing for PC patients. Genetic counselors trained oncology providers to offer a standardized multigene panel and obtain informed consent using an educational video. Pre-test genetic counseling was available upon request. Otherwise, patients with identified pathogenic variants, strong family history, or questions regarding their results were referred for post-test genetic counseling. We measured rates of testing and genetic counseling visits. From September 2019 to April 2021, 245 patients with PC underwent genetic testing. This represents a 6.5-fold increase in germline testing volume (95% confidence interval 5.2-8.1) compared to previous years. At least one pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant (PV/LPV) was found in 34 (13.9%) patients, including 17 (6.9%) PV/LPVs in high or moderate risk genes and 18 (7.3%) in low risk or recessive genes. Five (2.0%) PVs had implications on treatment selection. 22 of the positive patients (64.7%) and an additional 8 PC patients (1 negative, 3 VUS, and 4 pre-test) underwent genetic counseling during the study period. Genetic counselors saw 2.0 PC patients/month prior to this project, 1.6 PC patients/month during this project, and would have seen 2.2 PC patients/month if all patients with pathogenic variants attended post-test counseling. Conclusions Mainstreaming genetic testing expands access for PC patients without overwhelming genetic counseling resources.

How to improve efficiency in cancer care: dimensions, methods, and areas of evaluation

Efficiency in healthcare is crucial since available resources are scarce, and the opportunity cost of an inefficient allocation is measured in health outcomes foregone. This is particularly relevant for cancer. The aim of this paper was to gain a comprehensive overview of how efficiency in cancer care is defined, and what the indicators, different methods, perspectives, and areas of evaluation are, to provide recommendations on the areas and dimensions where efficiency can be improved. METHODS: A comprehensive scoping literature review was performed searching four databases. Studies published between 2000-2021 were included if they described experiences and cases of efficiency in cancer care or methods to evaluate efficiency. The results of the literature review were then discussed during two rounds of online consultation with a panel of 15 external experts invited to provide their insights and comments to deliberate policy recommendations. RESULTS: 46 papers met the inclusion criteria. Based on the papers retrieved we have identified six areas for achieving efficiency gains throughout the entire care pathway and, for each area of efficiency, we have categorized the methods and outcome used to measure efficiency gain CONCLUSION: This is the first attempt to systematize a scattered body of literature on how to improve efficiency in cancer care and identify key areas to improve it. Based on the findings of the literature review and on the opinion of the experts involved in the consultation, we propose seven recommendations that are intended to improve efficiency in cancer care throughout the care pathway.

Genetic testing in patients with triple-negative or hereditary breast cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent years there has been a dramatic evolution in the clinical utility of genetic testing with expanding therapeutic implications for individuals with breast cancer who harbor a germline mutation in BRCA1/2. As these therapeutic opportunities expand and evolve, this requires the clinical and research community to rethink the approach to genetic testing for individuals with breast cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Genetic testing is evolving from traditional testing models based on pretest counseling with the aim of identifying hereditary and individual risk for purposes of screening and risk reduction to contemporary models that utilize technology to improve accessibility and oncology led mainstreaming of testing where the oncologist refers for genetic testing, discloses the results and formal counseling occurs later in the process than in traditional models. The cost and accessibility to multigene panel testing have resulted in broad uptake despite the fact that clinical utility and appropriate interpretation of results are not yet well established. Furthermore, somatic testing for genomic alterations may also yield results beyond the disease with detection of germline mutations impacting the individual and their family more broadly than anticipated.

SUMMARY

With the establishment of poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors as part of the treatment armamentarium for early and advanced breast cancer, paradigms, algorithms, and resources for genetic testing need to rapidly change in order to adapt to the evolution of germline mutations from hereditary and individual risk predictors to predictive therapeutic biomarkers.

Large-scale group genetic counseling: Evaluation of a novel service delivery model in a Canadian hereditary cancer clinic

Increasing demand for genetic services has led to the development of streamlined genetic counseling (GC) models. We piloted large-scale group pre-test GC with up to 50 patients per group and compared this to a traditional one-on-one approach. Patients referred to the British Columbia (BC) Cancer Hereditary Cancer Program were eligible if they had: (a) family history meeting our program's referral criteria; (b) no relevant personal history of cancer; (c) no prior genetic testing in the family; and (d) no living testable relative in BC. Patient-reported outcome measures included: (a) Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS) prior to pre-test GC (T1) and at 4 weeks post-test GC (T2); (b) Satisfaction Survey after pre-test GC; and (c) the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) for patients undergoing testing (4 weeks after post-test GC). In total, 391 patients underwent GC, 184 by group and 207 by one-on-one appointments. Between May 2018 and May 2019, 6 pre-test group sessions were conducted (median number of patients per group = 28; range 15-48). 8% of patients (n = 32) declined large group GC due to personal preference for one-on-one GC. There were no statistically significant differences in MICRA and GCOS survey results when comparing the pre-test large group versus traditional pre-test one-on-one models (based on 3 MICRA subscales: p = 0.063, p = 0.612, p = 0.842; and GCOS p = 0.169). Overall, the large group pre-test counseling approach was more time-efficient with 15-48 patient group sessions conducted over a mean duration of 80 min as compared to 42 min per patient with the traditional one-on-one GC model. Large-scale group GC was feasible and acceptable to patients and represents a novel streamlined model for GC to enable timely access to cancer genetic services.

Genetic counseling experiences at the University of Cape Town during COVID-19

Soon after the first COVID-19 case was reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, South Africa announced a national lockdown in an attempt to curb the spread of the disease. Under national lockdown, businesses were closed, learning institutions moved to emergency remote teaching (ERT), and hospitals reduced their patient loads. De-escalation of clinical services at Groote Schuur and Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospitals affected Genetic Counseling Services and resulted in a decrease in in-person and an increase in telecounseling sessions. ERT, offered by the University of Cape Town, affected the teaching of Genetic Counseling students, and other methods of training had to be found to compensate for the lack of patient contact. In this paper, we present our Genetic Counseling team's experiences of learning and clinical services during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa. The team met online as a group in November 2020 to discuss their experiences. The discussion was recorded and transcribed, and topics that arose during the discussion were identified. The pandemic and the accompanying lock down, which forced trainees to move back home, resulted in great uncertainty. The trainees found ERT on an online platform, including simulated cases, very helpful, but they lost the confidence to work with real patients. Telecounseling became the predominant form of service delivery and was experienced as positive when video sessions were possible. The telephone service for advanced maternal age counseling was problematic due to unreliable networks. The biggest loss for the GCs was the feeling of disconnection from peers, supervisors, and patients. The experiences highlighted positive and negative aspects as well as specific challenges faced in South Africa. Lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic will be used in future to improve training of GCs and to enhance service delivery.

'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).

Opportunities and barriers for genetic service delivery in Kenya from a health personnel perspective

Genetic counselling and testing are essential health services for the management of heritable diseases. However, in low-and-middle income countries like Kenya, genetic counsellors are not yet a licenced profession, and there is limited availability of and access to genetic testing. This study aimed to uncover opportunities and barriers for genetic service delivery in the Kenyan healthcare system from the perspectives of those who provide genetic testing and/or genetic counselling. Participants included Kenyan health personnel who deliver genetic services. This was a qualitative study that collected data via semi-structured one-on-one interviews and analyzed it using inductive thematic analysis. Participant demographics and characteristics of clinical genetic service provision were collected using a survey and results summarized using descriptive statistics. Themes revealed during analysis were compared to the clinical characteristics of genetic service provision to inform the opportunities and barriers. Fifteen interviews were conducted in total. Thematic analysis indicated that participants believed that the barriers facing genetic service delivery were linked to three themes: (1) education and training, (2) costs, and (3) counselling challenges. The opportunities for genetic service delivery were linked to four themes: (1) demand, (2) education and training, (3) encouraging a multidisciplinary approach to care, and (4) enhancing laboratory infrastructure. These findings are crucial for the development of a national evidence-informed and culturally appropriate model for genetic service delivery.

Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM): A clinical trial assessing a multimodal cancer genetics services delivery program and its impact on diverse populations

Advances in the application of genomic technologies in clinical care have the potential to increase existing healthcare disparities. Studies have consistently shown that only a fraction of eligible patients with a family history of cancer receive recommended cancer genetic counseling and subsequent genetic testing. Care delivery models using pre-test and post-test counseling are not scalable, which contributes to barriers in accessing genetics services. These barriers are even more pronounced for patients in historically underserved populations. We have designed a multimodal intervention to improve subsequent cancer surveillance, by improving the identification of patients at risk for familial cancer syndromes, reducing barriers to genetic counseling/testing, and increasing patient understanding of complex genetic results. We are evaluating this intervention in two large, integrated healthcare systems that serve diverse patient populations (NCT03426878). The primary outcome is the number of diagnostic (hereditary cancer syndrome) findings. We are examining the clinical and personal utility of streamlined pathways to genetic testing using electronic medical record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews. We will assess downstream care utilization of individuals receiving usual clinical care vs. genetic testing through the study. We will evaluate the impacts of a literacy-focused genetic counseling approach versus usual care genetic counseling on care utilization and participant understanding, satisfaction, and family communication. By recruiting participants belonging to historically underserved populations, this study is uniquely positioned to evaluate the potential of a novel genetics care delivery program to reduce care disparities.

Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Advances in genetics and sequencing technologies are enabling the identification of more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility who could benefit from tailored screening and prevention recommendations. While cancer family history information is used in primary care settings to identify unaffected patients who could benefit from a cancer genetics evaluation, this information is underutilized. System-level population health management strategies are needed to assist health care systems in identifying patients who may benefit from genetic services. In addition, because of the limited number of trained genetics specialists and increasing patient volume, the development of innovative and sustainable approaches to delivering cancer genetic services is essential.

METHODS

We are conducting a randomized controlled trial, entitled Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services (BRIDGE), to address these needs. The trial is comparing uptake of genetic counseling, uptake of genetic testing, and patient adherence to management recommendations for automated, patient-directed versus enhanced standard of care cancer genetics services delivery models. An algorithm-based system that utilizes structured cancer family history data available in the electronic health record (EHR) is used to identify unaffected patients who receive primary care at the study sites and meet current guidelines for cancer genetic testing. We are enrolling eligible patients at two healthcare systems (University of Utah Health and New York University Langone Health) through outreach to a randomly selected sample of 2780 eligible patients in the two sites, with 1:1 randomization to the genetic services delivery arms within sites. Study outcomes are assessed through genetics clinic records, EHR, and two follow-up questionnaires at 4 weeks and 12 months after last genetic counseling contactpre-test genetic counseling.

DISCUSSION

BRIDGE is being conducted in two healthcare systems with different clinical structures and patient populations. Innovative aspects of the trial include a randomized comparison of a chatbot-based genetic services delivery model to standard of care, as well as identification of at-risk individuals through a sustainable EHR-based system. The findings from the BRIDGE trial will advance the state of the science in identification of unaffected patients with inherited cancer susceptibility and delivery of genetic services to those patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

BRIDGE is registered as NCT03985852 . The trial was registered on June 6, 2019 at clinicaltrials.gov .

A Collaborative Model to Implement Flexible, Accessible and Efficient Oncogenetic Services for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: The C-MOnGene Study

Simple Summary

We recently developed an oncogenetic model to overcome the unprecedented demand for genetic counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Quality and performance indicators showed that the implementation of this model improved access to genetic counseling and minimized delays for genetic tests for patients, who reported to be overwhelmingly satisfied with the process. However, it remains unknown whether this model is robust and sustainable or requires adjustments. In addition, whether the model could be deployed elsewhere remains also to be elucidated. The C-MOnGene study was therefore designed to gain an in-depth understanding of the context in which the model was developed and implemented, and document the lessons that can be learned to optimize oncogenetic services delivery in other settings.

Abstract

Medical genetic services are facing an unprecedented demand for counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in a context of limited resources. To help resolve this issue, a collaborative oncogenetic model was recently developed and implemented at the CHU de Québec-Université Laval; Quebec; Canada. Here, we present the protocol of the C-MOnGene (Collaborative Model in OncoGenetics) study, funded to examine the context in which the model was implemented and document the lessons that can be learned to optimize the delivery of oncogenetic services. Within three years of implementation, the model allowed researchers to double the annual number of patients seen in genetic counseling. The average number of days between genetic counseling and disclosure of test results significantly decreased. Group counseling sessions improved participants’ understanding of breast cancer risk and increased knowledge of breast cancer and genetics and a large majority of them reported to be overwhelmingly satisfied with the process. These quality and performance indicators suggest this oncogenetic model offers a flexible, patient-centered and efficient genetic counseling and testing for HBOC. By identifying the critical facilitating factors and barriers, our study will provide an evidence base for organizations interested in transitioning to an oncogenetic model integrated into oncology care; including teams that are not specialized but are trained in genetics.

Development and early implementation of an Accessible, Relational, Inclusive and Actionable approach to genetic counseling: The ARIA model

OBJECTIVE

To describe the training and early implementation of the ARIA model of genetic counseling (Accessible, Relational, Inclusive, Actionable).

METHODS

As part of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, an interdisciplinary workgroup developed the ARIA curriculum and trained genetic counselors to return exome sequencing results using the ARIA model.

CURRICULUM

The ARIA curriculum includes didactic elements, discussion, readings, role plays, and observations of usual care genetic counseling sessions. The ARIA model provides the skills and strategies needed for genetic counseling to be accessible to all patients, regardless of prior knowledge or literacy level; involves appropriate psychological and social counseling without overwhelming the patient with information; and leaves the patient with clear and actionable next steps.

CONCLUSION

With sufficient training and practice, the ARIA model appears to be feasible, with promise for ensuring that genetic counselors' communication is accessible, relational, inclusive and actionable for the diverse patients participating in genomic medicine.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

ARIA offers a coherent set of principles and strategies for effective communication with patients of all literacy levels and outlines specific techniques to practice and incorporate these skills into routine practice. The ARIA model could be integrated into genetic counseling training programs and practice, making genetic counseling more accessible and meaningful for all patients.

Understanding patients' views and willingness toward the use of telehealth in a cancer genetics service in Asia

Telehealth is a growing field, its pertinence magnified by COVID-19 causing the accelerated digitalization of the world. Given the significant global demand to provide telehealth services, it is important to explore patient receptiveness toward this alternative service model, particularly from regions where it has yet to be implemented. We conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the views and willingness of patients toward the use of telehealth for cancer genetic counseling. A survey was completed by 160 patients of the National Cancer Centre Singapore, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. The study found that 95.6% (n = 153/160) of participants did not have prior telehealth experience. Most participants were willing or neutral toward having genetic counseling by phone (n = 114/160, 71.3%) and video (n = 106/160, 66.3%). However, majority prefer in-person appointments for first (n = 127/160, 79.4%) and follow-up (n = 97/160, 60.6%) visits over telehealth. Majority agreed that a phone/video consultation would meet most of their needs but voiced concerns regarding privacy and sharing of information (n = 79/160, 49.4% for phone; n = 74/160, 46.3% for video) and whether their emotional needs could be met (n = 61/160, 38.1%). Participants' age, employment status, income, mode of transportation to the appointment, and whether special arrangements were made to attend the in-person appointment were associated with receptivity to telehealth genetic counseling (p ≤ .05 for all). This study adds diversity to existing literature and demonstrates that patients from Asia are generally willing and accepting of the use of telehealth in a cancer genetics service. This will help meet increasing global demand of telehealth consultations in the post-pandemic new norm. Furthermore, it will also provide services for underserved populations and patients requiring urgent testing in a timely manner. Further studies are needed to explore the cost-effectiveness and fair billing methods, as well as willingness and acceptability of telehealth genetic counseling in post-COVID times.

Effect of a health literacy training program for surgical oncologists and specialized nurses on disparities in referral to breast cancer genetic testing

Background

There is an underuse of genetic testing in breast cancer patients with a lower level of education, limited health literacy or a migrant background. We aimed to study the effect of a health literacy training program for surgical oncologists and specialized nurses on disparities in referral to genetic testing.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter study in a quasi-experimental pre-post (intervention) design. The intervention consisted of an online module and a group training for surgical oncologists and specialized nurses in three regions in the Netherlands. Six months pre- and 12 months post intervention, clinical geneticists completed a checklist with socio-demographic characteristics including the level of health literacy of each referred patient. We conducted univariate and logistic regression analysis to evaluate the effect of the training program on disparities in referral to genetic testing.

Results

In total, 3179 checklists were completed, of which 1695 were from hospital referrals. No significant differences were found in educational level, level of health literacy and migrant background of patients referred for genetic testing by healthcare professionals working in trained hospitals before (n = 795) and after (n = 409) the intervention. The mean age of patients referred by healthcare professionals from trained hospitals was significantly lower after the intervention (52.0 vs. 49.8, P = 0.003).

Conclusion

The results of our study suggest that the health literacy training program did not decrease disparities in referral to genetic testing. Future research in a more controlled design is needed to better understand how socio-demographic factors influence referral to breast cancer genetic testing and what other factors might contribute.

•

Study on the effect of a health literacy training on access to breast cancer genetic testing.

•

Background characteristics of breast cancer patients pre- and post-intervention are compared.

•

Mean age of patients referred by trained hospitals was significantly lower after intervention.

•

The health literacy training did not decrease disparities in referral to genetic testing.

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.

The role of the genetic testing industry in patient education of hereditary cancer: An observational study assessing the quality of patient education videos

OBJECTIVES

Genetic testing (GT) companies have developed patient education videos to supplement or replace pre-test genetic counseling (GC) by certified genetic counselors (CGC). The aim of this study was to assess the quality of these videos compared to the standard of care (SOC).

METHODS

Videos from four major GT companies were selected from an internet search identifying pre-test patient education videos. A scoring rubric with 22 questions and 36 total points was devised to assess quality metrics, as described by the National Cancer Institute and National Society of Genetic Counselors. Twenty-two individuals with varying genetics expertise (3 gynecologic oncologists, 3 academic generalists, 4 CGC, a genetics community health worker, 3 cancer care navigators, and 8 medical students) scored each video. Scorers were blinded to others' assessments.

RESULTS

Invitae had the highest median score (26/36), followed by Myriad (22/36), Ambry (17.5/36), and Color (15/36). All videos scored highly in explaining DNA basics, cancer development, and hereditary cancer predisposition. All addressed benefits of GT but failed to address potential disadvantages. All scored poorly in explaining medical terms and different GT options. There was variability in addressing patient concerns including cost, privacy, and procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variation in the content of pre-test patient education videos between GT companies. None of the videos met the SOC for pre-test GC, and none addressed disadvantages of GT, possibly due to a conflict of interest. With improvement in content, accessibility, and use of interactive platforms, these videos may serve as an adjunct to in-person pre-test GC.

Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

PURPOSE

Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider).

RESULTS

Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing-initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing-was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches.

CONCLUSION

This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

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.

Facilitated referral pathway for genetic testing at the time of ovarian cancer diagnosis: uptake of genetic counseling and testing and impact on patient-reported stress, anxiety and depression

BACKGROUND

Timely genetic testing at ovarian cancer diagnosis is essential as results impact front line treatment decisions. Our objective was to determine rates of genetic counseling and testing with an expedited genetics referral pathway wherein women with newly-diagnosed ovarian cancer are contacted by a genetics navigator to facilitate genetic counseling.

METHODS

Patients were referred for genetic counseling by their gynecologic oncologist, contacted by a genetics navigator and offered appointments for genetic counseling. Patients completed quality of life (QoL) surveys immediately pre- and post-genetic assessment and 6 months later. The primary outcome was feasibility of this pathway defined by presentation for genetic counseling.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2018, 100 patients were enrolled. Seventy-eight had genetic counseling and 73 testing. Median time from diagnosis to genetic counseling was 34 days (range 10-189). Among patients who underwent testing, 12 (16%) had pathogenic germline mutations (BRCA1-7, BRCA2-4, MSH2-1). Sixty-five patients completed QoL assessments demonstrating stress and anxiety at time of testing, however, scores improved at 6 months. Despite the pathway leveling financial and logistical barriers, patients receiving care at a public hospital were less likely to present for genetic counseling compared to private hospital patients (56% versus 84%, P = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

Facilitated referral to genetic counselors at time of ovarian cancer diagnosis is effective, resulting in high uptake of genetic counseling and testing, and does not demonstrate a long term psychologic toll. Concern about causing additional emotional distress should not deter clinicians from early genetics referral as genetic testing can yield important prognostic and therapeutic information.

Genetics and the Gynecologic Patient

Background: The field of hereditary cancer syndromes and genetic testing for patients and families is a rapidly evolving discipline, with an emphasis on cancer prevention. Methods: We review the literature regarding the most common genetic syndromes associated with gynecologic malignancies and discuss the management of these conditions. We also examine the logistic process surrounding cancer genetic testing and identify some perceived barriers. Results: Five genetic syndromes are known to be associated with gynecologic malignancies: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch, Cowden, Peutz-Jeghers, and Li-Fraumeni. Each is associated with varying risks of breast, ovarian, and uterine malignancies. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines regarding the management of these syndromes are focused primarily on reducing the risk of developing gynecologic malignancies. However, great complexity is involved with genetic testing for patients and their families, and barriers exist for the widespread use and implementation of such testing. Conclusion: Genetic testing is fundamental to primary cancer prevention and to oncologic care. Physicians, payers, and institutions must work collaboratively to maximize genetic testing with the goals of primary cancer prevention and treatment.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results

Background

Germline genetic testing is standard practice in oncology. Outcomes of telephone disclosure of a wide range of cancer genetic test results, including multigene panel testing (MGPT) are unknown.

Methods

Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone disclosure (TD) of genetic test results with usual care, in-person disclosure (IPD) after tiered-binned in-person pretest counseling. Primary noninferiority outcomes included change in knowledge, state anxiety, and general anxiety. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific distress, depression, uncertainty, satisfaction, and screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions. To declare noninferiority, we calculated the 98.3% one-sided confidence interval of the standardized effect; t tests were used for secondary subgroup analyses. Only noninferiority tests were one-sided, others were two-sided.

Results

A total of 1178 patients enrolled in the study. Two hundred eight (17.7%) participants declined random assignment due to a preference for in-person disclosure; 473 participants were randomly assigned to TD and 497 to IPD; 291 (30.0%) had MGPT. TD was noninferior to IPD for general and state anxiety and all secondary outcomes immediately postdisclosure. TD did not meet the noninferiority threshold for knowledge in the primary analysis, but it did meet the threshold in the multiple imputation analysis. In secondary analyses, there were no statistically significant differences between arms in screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions, and no statistically significant differences in outcomes by arm among those who had MGPT. In subgroup analyses, patients with a positive result had statistically significantly greater decreases in general anxiety with telephone disclosure (TD -0.37 vs IPD +0.87, P = .02).

Conclusions

Even in the era of multigene panel testing, these data suggest that telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is as an alternative to in-person disclosure for interested patients after in-person pretest counseling with a genetic counselor.

Regional models of genetic services in the United States

Purpose

To outline structures for regional genetic services support centers that improve access to clinical genetic services.

Methods

A workgroup (WG) and advisory committee (AC) (1) conducted a comprehensive review of existing models for delivering health care through a regional infrastructure, especially for genetic conditions; (2) analyzed data from a needs assessment conducted by the National Coordinating Center (NCC) to determine important components of a regional genetic services support center; and (3) prioritized components of a regional genetic services support system.

Results

Analysis of identified priorities and existing regional systems led to development of eight models for regional genetic services support centers. A hybrid model was recommended that included an active role for patients and families, national data development and collection, promotion of efficient and quality genetic clinical practices, healthcare professional support for nongeneticists, and technical assistance to healthcare professionals.

Conclusion

Given the challenges in improving access to genetic services, especially for underserved populations, regional models for genetic services support centers offer an opportunity to improve access to genetic services to local populations. Although a regional model can facilitate access, some systemic issues exist—e.g., distribution of a workforce trained in genetics—that regional genetic services support centers cannot resolve.

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.

Disparities in gynecologic cancer genetics evaluation

An estimated 2-5% of endometrial cancers and 15-20% of high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancers have an underlying hereditary cause. Appropriate risk assessment, genetic counseling, and germline genetic testing for cancer predisposition genes in both gynecologic cancer patients and their at-risk relatives is essential for effective delivery of tailored cancer treatment and cancer prevention. However, significant disparities exist within medically underserved and minority populations in the United States regarding awareness of, access to, and use of genetic services. The objectives of this review are to summarize the literature on genetic counseling and genetic testing of gynecologic cancer patients, the cascade genetic testing of their families following the identification of a germline mutation associated with susceptibility to cancer, to highlight disparities between populations, and to present some potential remedies.

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.

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.

In Their Own Words: A Qualitative Study of Kenyan Breast Cancer Survivors' Knowledge, Experiences, and Attitudes Regarding Breast Cancer Genetics

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer ranks among the most common adult cancers in Kenya. Individuals with a family history of the disease are at increased risk. Mutations most commonly associated with breast cancer affect BRCA1 and BRCA2; mutations in several other genes may also confer breast cancer risk. Genetic testing and counseling can help patients understand their risk and assist clinicians in choosing therapies. We aimed to uncover what patients know, experience, and think with regard to breast cancer genetics in Kenya.

METHODS

Participants included breast cancer survivors age > 18 years. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire before participating in focus group discussions to uncover knowledge of, experiences with, and attitudes toward the genetics of breast cancer. Data were analyzed by inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four focus groups were conducted. Participants had rudimentary knowledge about genetics and cancer development, and although they understood breast cancer could be familial, many suspected environmental factors causing spontaneous disease. They reported limited experience with counseling about genetic risk, perceiving that their physicians were too busy to provide comprehensive information. Many indicated they promoted cancer screening among family to promote early diagnosis. Participants expressed a need for more comprehensive counseling and access to genetic testing, recognizing the added clarity it would bring to their families' risk of cancer.

CONCLUSION

Improved communication from health care teams could clarify the risk of cancer for affected families. The introduction of affordable genetic testing and counseling for breast cancer in Kenya is welcomed by survivors.

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.

Internet Versus Virtual Reality Settings for Genomics Information Provision

Current models of genomic information provision will be unable to handle large-scale clinical integration of genomic information, as may occur in primary care settings. Therefore, adoption of digital tools for genetic and genomic information provision is anticipated, primarily using Internet-based, distributed approaches. The emerging consumer communication platform of virtual reality (VR) is another potential intermediate approach between face-to-face and distributed Internet platforms to engage in genomics education and information provision. This exploratory study assessed whether provision of genomics information about body weight in a simulated, VR-based consultation (relative to a distributed, Internet platform) would be associated with differences in health behavior-related attitudes and beliefs, and interpersonal reactions to the avatar-physician. We also assessed whether outcomes differed depending upon whether genomic versus lifestyle-oriented information was conveyed. There were significant differences between communication platforms for all health behavior-oriented outcomes. Following communication in the VR setting, participants reported greater self-efficacy, dietary behavioral intentions, and exercise behavioral intentions than in the Internet-based setting. There were no differences in trust of the physician by setting, and no interaction between setting effects and the content of the information. This study was a first attempt to examine the potential capabilities of a VR-based communication setting for conveying genomic content in the context of weight management. There may be benefits to use of VR settings for communication about genomics, as well as more traditional health information, when it comes to influencing the attitudes and beliefs that underlie healthy lifestyle behaviors.

Operationalizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model of Genetic Counseling Practice: a Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Genomic Counseling and Testing

With the advent of widespread genomic testing for diagnostic indications and disease risk assessment, there is increased need to optimize genetic counseling services to support the scalable delivery of precision medicine. Here, we describe how we operationalized the reciprocal engagement model of genetic counseling practice to develop a framework of counseling components and strategies for the delivery of genomic results. This framework was constructed based upon qualitative research with patients receiving genomic counseling following online receipt of potentially actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomics reports. Consultation with a transdisciplinary group of investigators, including practicing genetic counselors, was sought to ensure broad scope and applicability of these strategies for use with any large-scale genomic testing effort. We preserve the provision of pre-test education and informed consent as established in Mendelian/single-gene disease genetic counseling practice. Following receipt of genomic results, patients are afforded the opportunity to tailor the counseling agenda by selecting the specific test results they wish to discuss, specifying questions for discussion, and indicating their preference for counseling modality. The genetic counselor uses these patient preferences to set the genomic counseling session and to personalize result communication and risk reduction recommendations. Tailored visual aids and result summary reports divide areas of risk (genetic variant, family history, lifestyle) for each disease to facilitate discussion of multiple disease risks. Post-counseling, session summary reports are actively routed to both the patient and their physician team to encourage review and follow-up. Given the breadth of genomic information potentially resulting from genomic testing, this framework is put forth as a starting point to meet the need for scalable genetic counseling services in the delivery of precision medicine.

"Where Does it Come from?" Experiences Among Survivors and Parents of Children with Retinoblastoma in Kenya

Genetic testing and counseling have become integral to the timely control of heritable cancers, like the childhood eye cancer retinoblastoma. This study aimed to determine attitudes, knowledge and experiences related to retinoblastoma genetics, among survivors and parents of children with retinoblastoma in Kenya. This qualitative study used focus groups as the primary data collection method, coupled with a brief demographic questionnaire. Study settings were Kenyatta National Hospital and Presbyterian Church of East Africa Kikuyu Hospital. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. Thirty-one individuals participated in five focus groups. Two main concepts emerged: (1) the origins of retinoblastoma are unclear, and (2) retinoblastoma is associated with significant challenges. The lack of clarity surrounding the origins of retinoblastoma was linked to limited knowledge of retinoblastoma genetics, and limited genetic counseling delivery and uptake. The challenges associated with retinoblastoma were discussed in terms of the impact of the diagnosis on individuals and families, and unmet healthcare needs related to the diagnosis. Next steps will incorporate these findings to develop evidence-informed and accessible cancer genetic services in Kenya.

Genetic Testing: Challenges and Changes in Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes

BACKGROUND

The practice of genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes has changed dramatically in recent years, and patients often approach oncology nurses requesting information about genetic testing.
.

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to explore changes in cancer genetics, the role of genetics professionals in providing comprehensive genetic care, and the implications of these new developments in genetics for oncology nurses.
.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted and focused on articles about the updating of genetic tests with panel testing, insurance changes, alternative genetic counseling strategies, and direct-to-consumer genetic testing.
.

FINDINGS

Oncology nurses play an important role in identifying and referring patients, including those who have tested negative for hereditary susceptibility genes, to genetics professionals. Genetics professionals can assist with insurance issues, interpretation of test results, clarification when a variant of unknown clinical significance is detected, and recommendations for care based on personal and family history and testing results. Oncology nurses can assist families with understanding the limitations of direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Patient and genetic counselor perceptions of in-person versus telephone genetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer

Telephone genetic counseling (TC) for high-risk women interested in BRCA1/2 testing has been shown to yield positive outcomes comparable to usual care (UC; in-person) genetic counseling. However, little is known about how genetic counselors perceive the delivery of these alternate forms of genetic counseling. As part of a randomized trial of TC versus UC, genetic counselors completed a 5-item genetic counselor process questionnaire (GCQ) assessing key elements of pre-test sessions (information delivery, emotional support, addressing questions and concerns, tailoring of session, and facilitation of decision-making) with the 479 female participants (TC, N = 236; UC, N = 243). The GCQ scores did not differ for TC vs. UC sessions (t (477) = 0.11, p = 0.910). However, multivariate analysis showed that participant race/ethnicity significantly predicted genetic counselor perceptions (β = 0.172, p < 0.001) in that the GCQ scores were lower for minorities in TC and UC. Exploratory analyses suggested that GCQ scores may be associated with patient preference for UC versus TC (t (79) = 2.21, p = 0.030). Additionally, we found that genetic counselor ratings of session effectiveness were generally concordant with patient perceptions of the session. These data indicate that genetic counselors perceive that key components of TC can be delivered as effectively as UC, and that these elements may contribute to specific aspects of patient satisfaction. However, undefined process differences may be present which account for lower counselor perceptions about the effectiveness of their sessions with minority women (i.e., those other than non-Hispanic Whites). We discuss other potential clinical and research implications of our findings.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A 12-Month Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Telephone delivery of genetic counseling is an alternative to in-person genetic counseling because it may extend the reach of genetic counseling. Previous reports have established the noninferiority of telephone counseling on short-term psychosocial and decision-making outcomes. Here we examine the long-term impact of telephone counseling (TC) vs in-person counseling (usual care [UC]).

METHODS

We recruited high-risk women for a noninferiority trial comparing TC with UC. Of 1057 potentially eligible women, 669 were randomly assigned to TC (n = 335) or UC (n = 334), and 512 completed the 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were patient-reported satisfaction with genetic testing decision, distress, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were uptake of cancer risk management strategies.

RESULTS

TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. Satisfaction with decision (d = 0.13, lower bound of 97.5% confidence interval [CI] = -0.34) did not cross its one-point noninferiority limit, cancer-specific distress (d = -2.10, upper bound of 97.5% CI = -0.07) did not cross its four-point noninferiority limit, and genetic testing distress (d = -0.27, upper bound of 97.5% CI = 1.46), physical function (d = 0.44, lower bound of 97.5% CI = -0.91) and mental function (d = -0.04, lower bound of 97.5% CI = -1.44) did not cross their 2.5-point noninferiority limit. Bivariate analyses showed no differences in risk-reducing mastectomy or oophorectomy across groups; however, when combined, TC had significantly more risk-reducing surgeries than UC (17.8% vs 10.5%; χ2 = 4.43, P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings support telephone delivery of genetic counseling to extend the accessibility of this service without long-term adverse outcomes.

Experiences of Genetic Counselors Practicing in Rural Areas

In-person genetic counseling clinics in rural areas are likely to improve access to genetic counseling in underserved regions, but studies have not previously examined how these clinics function or described the experience of practicing in a rural setting. The present mixed-methods study explored the professional experiences of clinical genetic counselors who practice in rural areas, including the benefits and challenges of practicing in these settings and the counselors' motivations for doing so. The authors surveyed 20 genetic counselors who self-reported working in rural areas and conducted interviews with six individuals whose workplaces were confirmed as rural per RUCA code. Major obstacles to the provision of genetics services in rural areas included travel distance and low referral rates due to lack of awareness or skepticism. Facilitating factors included relying on resources such as professional networks and prioritizing outreach and education. Participants reported high professional satisfaction and were motivated to work in rural areas by personal experiences and qualities of the job such as being a generalist and having greater professional autonomy. These data demonstrate the feasibility of practicing in rural settings and suggest that in-person rural genetic counseling clinics may complement other strategies such as alternative service delivery models in increasing access for rural residents.

Self-Reported Questionnaire Detects Family History of Cancer in a Pancreatic Cancer Screening Program

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading cause of cancer death; approximately 5-10% of PDAC is hereditary. Self-administered health history questionnaires (HHQs) may provide a low-cost method to detail family history (FH) of malignancy. Pancreas Center patients were asked to enroll in a registry; 149 with PDAC completed a HHQ which included FH data. Patients with FH of PDAC, or concern for inherited PDAC syndrome, were separately evaluated in a Prevention Program and additionally met with a genetic counselor (GC) to assess PDAC risk (n = 61). FH obtained through GC and HHQ were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank sum and generalized linear mixed models with Poisson distribution. Agreement between GC and HHQ risk-assessment was assessed using kappa (κ) statistic. In the Prevention Program, HHQ was as precise in detecting FH of cancer as the GC (all p > 0.05). GC and HHQ demonstrated substantial agreement in risk-stratification of the Prevention Program cohort (κ = 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.87.) The sensitivity of the HHQ to detect a patient at elevated risk (i.e., moderate- or high-risk) of PDAC, compared to GC, was 82.9% (95% CI 67.3-92.3%) with a specificity of 95% (95% CI 73.1-99.7%). However, seven patients who were classified as average-risk by the HHQ were found to be at an elevated-risk of PDAC by the GC. In the PDAC cohort, 30/149 (20.1%) reported at least one first-degree relative (FDR) with PDAC. The limited sensitivity of the HHQ to detect patients at elevated risk of PDAC in the Prevention Program cohort suggests that a GC adds value in risk-assessment in this population. The HHQ may offer an opportunity to identify high-risk patients in a PDAC population.

Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Genomic Counseling for Patients Receiving Personalized and Actionable Complex Disease Reports

There has been very limited study of patients with chronic disease receiving potentially actionable genomic based results or the utilization of genetic counselors in the online result delivery process. We conducted a randomized controlled trial on 199 patients with chronic disease each receiving eight personalized and actionable complex disease reports online. Primary study aims were to assess the impact of in-person genomic counseling on 1) causal attribution of disease risk, 2) personal awareness of disease risk, and 3) perceived risk of developing a particular disease. Of 98 intervention arm participants (mean age = 57.8; 39% female) randomized for in-person genomic counseling, 76 (78%) were seen. In contrast, control arm participants (n = 101; mean age = 58.5; 54% female) were initially not offered genomic counseling as part of the study protocol but were able to access in-person genomic counseling, if they requested it, 3-months post viewing of at least one test report and post-completion of the study-specific follow-up survey. A total of 64 intervention arm and 59 control arm participants completed follow-up survey measures. We found that participants receiving in-person genomic counseling had enhanced objective understanding of the genetic variant risk contribution for multiple complex diseases. Genomic counseling was associated with lowered participant causal beliefs in genetic influence across all eight diseases, compared to control participants. Our findings also illustrate that for the majority of diseases under study, intervention arm participants believed they knew their genetic risk status better than control arm subjects. Disease risk was modified for the majority during genomic counseling, due to the assessment of more comprehensive family history. In conclusion, for patients receiving personalized and actionable genomic results through a web portal, genomic counseling enhanced their objective understanding of the genetic variant risk contribution to multiple common diseases. These results support the development of additional genomic counseling interventions to ensure a high level of patient comprehension and improve patient-centered health outcomes.

Counselees' Perspectives of Genomic Counseling Following Online Receipt of Multiple Actionable Complex Disease and Pharmacogenomic Results: a Qualitative Research Study

Genomic applications raise multiple challenges including the optimization of genomic counseling (GC) services as part of the results delivery process. More information on patients' motivations, preferences, and informational needs are essential to guide the development of new, more efficient practice delivery models that capitalize on the existing strengths of a limited genetic counseling workforce. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a subset of counselees from the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative following online receipt of multiple personalized genomic test reports. Participants previously had either in-person GC (chronic disease cohort, n = 20; mean age 60 years) or telephone GC (community cohort, n = 31; mean age 46.8 years). Transcripts were analyzed using a Grounded Theory framework. Major themes that emerged from the interviews include 1) primary reasons for seeking GC were to clarify results, put results into perspective relative to other health-related concerns, and to receive personalized recommendations; 2) there is need for a more participant driven approach in terms of mode of GC communication (in-person, phone, video), and refining the counseling agenda pre-session; and 3) there was strong interest in the option of follow up GC. By clarifying counselees' expectations, views and desired outcomes, we have uncovered a need for a more participant-driven GC model when potentially actionable genomic results are received online.