Primary care providers' cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: A systematic review and research agenda

Errors in genome sequencing result disclosures: A randomized controlled trial comparing neonatology non-genetics healthcare professionals and genetic counselors

PURPOSE

We compared the rate of errors in genome sequencing (GS) result disclosures by genetic counselors (GC) and trained non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) in SouthSeq, a randomized trial utilizing GS in critically ill infants.

METHODS

Over 400 recorded GS result disclosures were analyzed for major and minor errors. We used Fisher's exact test to compare error rates between GCs and NGHPs and performed a qualitative content analysis to characterize error themes.

RESULTS

Major errors were identified in 7.5% of disclosures by NGHPs and in no disclosures by GCs. Minor errors were identified in 32.1% of disclosures by NGHPs and in 11.4% of disclosures by GCs. Although most disclosures lacked errors, NGHPs were significantly more likely to make any error than GCs for all result types (positive, negative, or uncertain). Common major error themes include omission of critical information, overstating a negative result, and overinterpreting an uncertain result. The most common minor error was failing to disclose negative secondary findings.

CONCLUSION

Trained NGHPs made clinically significant errors in GS result disclosures. Characterizing common errors in result disclosure can illuminate gaps in education to inform the development of future genomics training and alternative service delivery models.

The acceptability and clinical impact of using polygenic scores for risk-estimation of common cancers in primary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Polygenic scores (PGS) have been developed for cancer risk-estimation and show potential as tools to prompt earlier referral for high-risk individuals and aid risk-stratification within cancer screening programmes. This review explores the potential for using PGS to identify individuals at risk of the most common cancers seen in primary care.

METHODS

Two electronic databases were searched up until November 2023 to identify quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies that reported on the acceptability and clinical impact of using PGS to identify individuals at highest risk of breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer in primary care. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of included studies and a narrative synthesis was used to analyse data.

RESULTS

A total of 190 papers were identified, 18 of which were eligible for inclusion. A cancer risk-assessment tool incorporating PGS was acceptable to the general practice population and their healthcare providers but major challenges to implementation were identified, including lack of evidence for PGS in non-European ancestry and a need for healthcare provider education in genomic medicine. A PGS cancer risk-assessment had relatively limited impact on psychosocial outcomes and health behaviours. However, for prostate cancer, potential applications for its use in primary care were shown.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer risk assessment incorporating PGS in primary care is acceptable to patients and healthcare providers but there is a paucity of research exploring clinical impact. Few studies were identified, and more research is required before clinical implementation of PGS can be recommended.

The Evolution of Genetic Testing from Focused Testing to Panel Testing and from Patient Focused to Population Testing: Are We There Yet?

The field of cancer genetics has evolved significantly over the past 30 years. Genetic testing has become less expensive and more comprehensive which has changed practice patterns. It is no longer necessary to restrict testing to those with the highest likelihood of testing positive. In addition, we have learned that the criteria developed to determine who has the highest likelihood of testing positive are neither sensitive nor specific. As a result, the field is moving from testing only the highest risk patients identified based on testing criteria to testing all cancer patients. This requires new service delivery models where testing can be mainstreamed into oncology clinics and posttest genetic counseling can be provided to individuals who test positive and those with concerning personal or family histories who test negative. The use of videos, testing kiosks, chatbots, and genetic counseling assistants have been employed to help facilitate testing at a larger scale and have good patient uptake and satisfaction. While testing is important for cancer patients as it may impact their treatment, future cancer risks, and family member's cancer risks, it is unfortunate that their cancer could not be prevented in the first place. Population testing for all adults would be a strategy to identify individuals with adult-onset diseases before they develop cancer in an attempt to prevent it entirely. A few research studies (Healthy Nevada and MyCode) have offered population testing for the three Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tier 1 conditions: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, Lynch syndrome, and familial hypercholesterolemia finding a prevalence of 1 in 70 individuals in the general population. We anticipate that testing for all cancer patients and the general population will continue to increase over the next 20 years and the genetics community needs to help lead the way to ensure this happens in a responsible manner.

Genetic Basis of Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Approaches and Lessons Learnt from Three Decades of Inherited Predisposition Testing

Germline variants occurring in BRCA1 and BRCA2 give rise to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome, predisposing to breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers marked by elevated incidences of genomic aberrations that correspond to poor prognoses. These genes are in fact involved in genetic integrity, particularly in the process of homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair, a high-fidelity repair system for mending DNA double-strand breaks. In addition to its implication in HBOC pathogenesis, the impairment of HR has become a prime target for therapeutic intervention utilizing poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. In the present review, we introduce the molecular roles of HR orchestrated by BRCA1 and BRCA2 within the framework of sensitivity to PARP inhibitors. We examine the genetic architecture underneath breast and ovarian cancer ranging from high- and mid- to low-penetrant predisposing genes and taking into account both germline and somatic variations. Finally, we consider higher levels of complexity of the genomic landscape such as polygenic risk scores and other approaches aiming to optimize therapeutic and preventive strategies for breast and ovarian cancer.

Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk and Perceived Importance of Genetic Information Among US Population by Race and Ethnicity: a Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing can help determine the risk of many cancers and guide cancer prevention and treatment plans. Despite increasing concern about disparities in precision cancer medicine, public knowledge and cancer genetic testing by race and ethnicity have not been well investigated.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey in 2022. Self-reported cancer genetic testing (e.g., Lynch syndrome, BRCA1/2) knowledge and utilization were compared by race and ethnicity. Perceived importance of genetic information for cancer care (prevention, detection, and treatment) was also examined in relation to the uptake of cancer genetic testing. Multivariable logistic regression models were employed to examine factors associated with knowledge and genetic testing to calculate predicted probability of undergoing genetic testing by race and ethnicity.

RESULTS

Of 3551 study participants, 37.8% reported having heard of genetic testing for cancer risk and 3.9% stated that they underwent cancer genetic testing. Being non-Hispanic Black (OR=0.47, 95% CI=0.30-0.75) or Hispanic (OR=0.56, CI=0.35-0.90) was associated with lower odds of genetic testing knowledge. Although Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black respondents were more likely to perceive higher importance of genetic information versus non-Hispanic Whites, they had a lower predicted probability of cancer genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic adults had lower knowledge and were less likely to undergo cancer genetic testing than non-Hispanic Whites. Further research is needed on sources of genetic testing information for racial and ethnic minorities and the barriers to accessing genetic testing to inform the development of effective cancer risk genetic testing promotion.

Building a vertically integrated genomic learning health system: The biobank at the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine

Precision medicine initiatives across the globe have led to a revolution of repositories linking large-scale genomic data with electronic health records, enabling genomic analyses across the entire phenome. Many of these initiatives focus solely on research insights, leading to limited direct benefit to patients. We describe the biobank at the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine (CCPM Biobank) that was jointly developed by the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and UCHealth to serve as a unique, dual-purpose research and clinical resource accelerating personalized medicine. This living resource currently has more than 200,000 participants with ongoing recruitment. We highlight the clinical, laboratory, regulatory, and HIPAA-compliant informatics infrastructure along with our stakeholder engagement, consent, recontact, and participant engagement strategies. We characterize aspects of genetic and geographic diversity unique to the Rocky Mountain region, the primary catchment area for CCPM Biobank participants. We leverage linked health and demographic information of the CCPM Biobank participant population to demonstrate the utility of the CCPM Biobank to replicate complex trait associations in the first 33,674 genotyped individuals across multiple disease domains. Finally, we describe our current efforts toward return of clinical genetic test results, including high-impact pathogenic variants and pharmacogenetic information, and our broader goals as the CCPM Biobank continues to grow. Bringing clinical and research interests together fosters unique clinical and translational questions that can be addressed from the large EHR-linked CCPM Biobank resource within a HIPAA- and CLIA-certified environment.

The Diagnostic Landscape of Adult Neurogenetic Disorders

Neurogenetic diseases affect individuals across the lifespan, but accurate diagnosis remains elusive for many patients. Adults with neurogenetic disorders often undergo a long diagnostic odyssey, with multiple specialist evaluations and countless investigations without a satisfactory diagnostic outcome. Reasons for these diagnostic challenges include: (1) clinical features of neurogenetic syndromes are diverse and under-recognized, particularly those of adult-onset, (2) neurogenetic syndromes may manifest with symptoms that span multiple neurological and medical subspecialties, and (3) a positive family history may not be present or readily apparent. Furthermore, there is a large gap in the understanding of how to apply genetic diagnostic tools in adult patients, as most of the published literature focuses on the pediatric population. Despite these challenges, accurate genetic diagnosis is imperative to provide affected individuals and their families guidance on prognosis, recurrence risk, and, for an increasing number of disorders, offer targeted treatment. Here, we provide a framework for recognizing adult neurogenetic syndromes, describe the current diagnostic approach, and highlight studies using next-generation sequencing in different neurological disease cohorts. We also discuss diagnostic pitfalls, barriers to achieving a definitive diagnosis, and emerging technology that may increase the diagnostic yield of testing.

Talking numbers: how women and providers use risk scores during and after risk counseling - a qualitative investigation from the NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1 study

OBJECTIVES

Little research exists on how risk scores are used in counselling. We examined (a) how Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) scores are presented during counselling; (b) how women react and (c) discuss them afterwards.

DESIGN

Consultations were video-recorded and participants were interviewed after the consultation as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1 (NSABP DMP-1).

SETTING

Two NSABP DMP-1 breast cancer care centres in the USA: one large comprehensive cancer centre serving a high-risk population and an academic safety-net medical centre in an urban setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty women evaluated for breast cancer risk and their counselling providers were included.

METHODS

Participants who were identified as at increased risk of breast cancer were recruited to participate in qualitative study with a video-recorded consultation and subsequent semi-structured interview that included giving feedback and input after viewing their own consultation. Consultation videos were summarised jointly and inductively as a team.tThe interview material was searched deductively for text segments that contained the inductively derived themes related to risk assessment. Subgroup analysis according to demographic variables such as age and Gail score were conducted, investigating reactions to risk scores and contrasting and comparing them with the pertinent video analysis data. From this, four descriptive categories of reactions to risk scores emerged. The descriptive categories were clearly defined after 19 interviews; all 30 interviews fit principally into one of the four descriptive categories.

RESULTS

Risk scores were individualised and given meaning by providers through: (a) presenting thresholds, (b) making comparisons and (c) emphasising or minimising the calculated risk. The risk score information elicited little reaction from participants during consultations, though some added to, agreed with or qualified the provider's information. During interviews, participants reacted to the numbers in four primary ways: (a) engaging easily with numbers; (b) expressing greater anxiety after discussing the risk score; (c) accepting the risk score and (d) not talking about the risk score.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the necessity that patients' experiences must be understood and put into relation to risk assessment information to become a meaningful treatment decision-making tool, for instance by categorising patients' information engagement into types.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01399359.

Perceived benefits and barriers to implementing precision preventive care: Results of a national physician survey

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) may improve risk-stratification in preventive care. Their clinical implementation will depend on primary care physicians' (PCPs) uptake. We surveyed PCPs in a national physician database about the perceived clinical utility, benefits, and barriers to the use of PRS in preventive care. Among 367 respondents (participation rate 96.3%), mean (SD) age was 54.9 (12.9) years, 137 (37.3%) were female, and mean (SD) time since medical school graduation was 27.2 (13.3) years. Respondents reported greater perceived utility for more clinical action (e.g., earlier or more intensive screening, preventive medications, or lifestyle modification) for patients with high-risk PRS than for delayed or discontinued prevention actions for low-risk patients (p < 0.001). Respondents most often chose out-of-pocket costs (48%), lack of clinical guidelines (24%), and insurance discrimination concerns (22%) as extreme barriers. Latent class analysis identified 3 subclasses of respondents. Skeptics (n = 83, 22.6%) endorsed less agreement with individual clinical utilities, saw patient anxiety and insurance discrimination as significant barriers, and agreed less often that PRS could help patients make better health decisions. Learners (n = 134, 36.5%) and enthusiasts (n = 150, 40.9%) expressed similar levels of agreement that PRS had utility for preventive actions and that PRS could be useful for patient decision-making. Compared with enthusiasts, however, learners perceived greater barriers to the clinical use of PRS. Overall results suggest that PCPs generally endorse using PRS to guide medical decision-making about preventive care, and barriers identified suggest interventions to address their needs and concerns.

Primary care providers' preferences for the communication and management of actionable genomic findings from a research biobank

Purpose

Little is known about non-genetics health care specialists' attitudes toward the return and utilization of actionable genomic results from a research biobank. We surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) to explore their perspectives on these results and their preferences for return.

Methods

We administered a paper and web-based 27-question survey to PCPs residing locally and caring for adult patients. Recruitment was conducted in person and by email, focusing on PCPs likely to interact with results generated by our institution's biobank.

Results

Of the ~482 PCPs contacted, 77 (16%) returned surveys. Although most respondents (90%) prefer that a genetics specialist be involved in communicating biobank-generated genomic results to patients, about 40% of respondents reported that a PCP shares the responsibility to discuss these results along with other specialists. A majority of respondents (74%) felt uncomfortable communicating these results to patients. However, respondents reported significantly greater comfort with this process when offered targeted educational resources (62% with vs 10% without resources; P < 10-5).

Conclusion

PCPs recognize the need to engage with their patients' biobank-generated genomic results but feel uncomfortable in doing so. Relevant resources are needed to improve PCPs' confidence in the use of these types of results to affect patient care.

Retrospective Cohort Study on the Limitations of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Screening in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE

Among cancer predisposition genes, most direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests evaluate three Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) founder mutations in BRCA1/2, which represent a small proportion of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PLPV) in cancer predisposing genes. In this study, we investigate PLPV in BRCA1/2 and other cancer predisposition genes that are missed by testing only AJ founder BRCA1/2 mutations.

METHODS

Individuals were referred to genetic testing for personal diagnoses of breast and/or ovarian cancer (clinical cohort) or were self-referred (nonindication-based cohort). There were 348,692 participants in the clinical cohort and 7,636 participants in the nonindication-based cohort. Both cohorts were analyzed for BRCA1/2 AJ founder mutations. Full sequence analysis was done for PLPV in BRCA1/2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, STK11, TP53, ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2 (truncating variants), EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2/6, NF1, PMS2, RAD51C/D, and 22 other genes.

RESULTS

BRCA1/2 AJ founder mutations accounted for 10.8% and 29.7% of BRCA1/2 PLPV in the clinical and nonindication-based cohorts, respectively. AJ founder mutations accounted for 89.9% of BRCA1/2 PLPV in those of full AJ descent, but only 69.6% of those of partial AJ descent. In total, 0.5% of all individuals had a BRCA1/2 AJ founder variant, while 7.7% had PLPV in a high-risk breast/ovarian cancer gene. For non-AJ individuals, limiting evaluation to the AJ founder BRCA1/2 mutations missed >90% of mutations in actionable cancer risk genes. Secondary analysis revealed a false-positive rate of 69% for PLPV outside of non-AJ BRCA 1/2 founder mutations.

CONCLUSION

DTC genetic testing misses >90% of BRCA1/2 PLPV in individuals of non-AJ ancestry and about 10% of BRCA1/2 PLPV among AJ individuals. There is a high false-positivity rate for non-AJ BRCA 1/2 PLPV with DTC genetic testing.

Are Graduate Medical Trainees Prepared for the Personalized Genomic Medicine Revolution? Trainee Perspectives at One Institution

Although the use of genomics to inform clinical care is increasing, clinicians feel underprepared to integrate personalized medicine (PM) into care decisions. The educational needs of physician residents and fellows, also known as graduate medical trainees (GMTs), have been overlooked. We administered an anonymous, web-based survey to all GMTs participating in training programs affiliated with our institution to evaluate their knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward PM. Of the 1190 GMTs contacted, 319 (26.8%) returned surveys. Most (88.4%) respondents reported receiving PM education in the past. Although the respondents agreed that knowledge of disease genetics (80.9%) or pharmacogenetics (87.1%) would likely lead to improved clinical outcomes, only 33.2% of the respondents felt sufficiently informed about PM. The respondents who had received PM education in residency and/or fellowship had significantly higher self-reported knowledge, ability, awareness, and adoption of PM than those who had not received this education (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, and p < 0.01, respectively). Targeted training is needed to improve GMTs' confidence in interpreting and explaining genetic test results. The ideal timing for this education appears to be in residency and/or fellowship rather than in medical school.

Residential Locale Is Associated with Disparities in Genetic Testing-Related Outcomes Among BRCA1/2-Positive Women

BACKGROUND

While research on hereditary genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations continues to emerge, there remain unanswered questions regarding access to testing and cancer-related care. Our study determined the associations between race/ethnicity, residential locale, and genetic testing provider and related outcomes among US women with BRCA1/2 genetic mutations.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-three BRCA1/2-positive women from vulnerable health backgrounds were recruited via private national Facebook BRCA1/2-oriented support groups and completed an online survey. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression for the associations between race/ethnicity, residential locale, and genetic testing-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Women ranged in age (18-75, M = 39.5, SD = 10.7), and most were non-Hispanic white (66.3%) and lived in a suburban locale (54.9%). Women living in suburban areas were significantly less likely (aOR, .369, 95% CI, .177-.771) to receive behavioral referrals after genetic testing compared to those living in an urban locale. Women living in rural areas and suburban areas were 4.72 times more likely (95% CI, 1.48-15.1, p = .009) and 2.61 times more likely (95% CI, 1.05-6.48, p = .038), respectively, to receive genetic testing from a primary care provider versus private genetic testing office/hospital compared to women in urban locales. Associations between race/ethnicity and genetic testing outcomes were not statistically significant. Residential locale did not predict the odds of undergoing surgery for risk reduction or surveillance for early detection.

CONCLUSION

Our study identifies disparities in genetic testing resources among women living in suburban and rural areas. These findings can be used to inform future care, research, and community resources that may impact services relating to genetic testing within these locales.

Identification of individuals at high-risk for pancreatic cancer using a digital patient-input tool combining family cancer history screening and new-onset diabetes

Capturing family history might be a valuable tool for identification of individuals at increased risk of pancreatic cancer, which would allow enrollment into pancreatic surveillance programs. In addition, weight loss and concurrent new-onset diabetes may be utilized as an early marker for pancreatic cancer. This study evaluates the yield of combining family history and the Enriching New-Onset Diabetes for Pancreatic Cancer (ENDPAC) model to identify individuals who could benefit from pancreatic surveillance. A novel questionnaire and digital input tool was created that combined questions on family cancer history and criteria of the ENDPAC model. Individuals meeting ENDPAC criteria were enrolled directly in the high-risk pancreatic clinic. Individuals who met the criteria for a significant family history of cancer were offered referral to a genetic counselor. The questionnaire was completed by 453 patients. Of those, 25.8% (117/453) had significant familial risk factors. Eighteen individuals (15.4%) completed genetic testing previously, of whom five had a pathogenic variant. Thirty-four (29.9%) out of 117 individuals with a strong family history - flagged by the questionnaire - underwent genetic testing. Four (11.8%) of these patients harbored a pathogenic variant. Additionally, through cascade family testing, two siblings were found to carry pathogenic variants. Four (0.9%) of the 453 patients matched ENDPAC criteria. Two were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and the others were enrolled in the surveillance program. In conclusion, identification of high-risk individuals for pancreatic cancer can be achieved by combining family history screening and the ENDPAC model to facilitate referral to genetic counseling and high-risk clinics.

Scope of coverage of medical genetics and genomics in pre-clerkship programs of Canadian faculties of medicine: A curriculum analysis

We appraised the scope of medical genetics and genomics concepts covered in the pre-clerkship programs of Canadian faculties of medicine through an analysis of course objectives. All course objectives linked to medical genetics and genomics in pre-clerkship programs of Canadian faculties of medicine were compiled. From this, the fraction of objectives dedicated to medical genetics and genomics was calculated. Course objectives were also categorized according to a curriculum and a competency classification. Of the 17 Canadian faculties of medicine, the complete set of course syllabi (5 faculties) or the listing of learning objectives (4 faculties) were obtained and reviewed. The fraction of learning objectives dedicated to medical genetics and genomics varied between 0.65% and 5.05%. From the objectives classification, "foundational knowledge" was most frequently covered (64% of the compiled objectives), while topics such as: "ethics and professionalism," "communicate genetics information," and "obtain specialist help" were covered by less than 5%. Coverage of medical genetics and genomics in pre-clerkship programs of Canadian faculties of medicine appears to be low. Genetics and genomics are playing a rapidly expanding role in healthcare and clinical practice and educational programs should consider this new reality.

Development of Competency-based Online Genomic Medicine Training (COGENT)

The fields of genetics and genomics have greatly expanded across medicine through the development of new technologies that have revealed genetic contributions to a wide array of traits and diseases. Thus, the development of widely available educational resources for all healthcare providers is essential to ensure the timely and appropriate utilization of genetics and genomics patient care. In 2020, the National Human Genome Research Institute released a call for new proposals to develop accessible, sustainable online education for health providers. This paper describes the efforts of the six teams awarded to reach the goal of providing genetic and genomic training modules that are broadly available for busy clinicians.

General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The proliferation and growing demands of genetic testing are anticipated to revolutionise medical practice. As gatekeepers of healthcare systems, general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play a critical role in the provision of clinical genetic services. This paper aims to review existing literature on GPs' experience, attitudes and needs towards clinical genetic services.

DESIGN

A systematic mixed studies review of papers published between 2010 and 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The inclusion criterion was peer-reviewed articles in English and related to GPs' experience, views and needs on any genetic testing.

INFORMATION SOURCES

The PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, EMBASE databases were searched using Mesh terms, Boolean and wildcards combinations to identify peer-reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2022. Study quality was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Only articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected. A thematic meta-synthesis was conducted on the final sample of selected articles to identify key themes.

RESULTS

A total of 62 articles were included in the review. Uncertainty over GPs' role in providing genetic services were attributed by the lack of confidence and time constraints and rarity of cases may further exacerbate their reluctance to shoulder an expanded role in clinical genetics. Although educational interventions were found to increasing GPs' knowledge and confidence to carry out genetic tasks, varied interest on genetic testing and preference for a shared care model with other genetic health professionals have resulted in minimal translation to clinical adoption.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the need for deeper exploration of GPs' varied experience and attitudes towards clinical genetic services to better facilitate targeted intervention in the adoption of clinical genetics.

Barriers, interventions, and recommendations: Improving the genetic testing landscape

Individual, provider, clinic, and societal level barriers have been shown to undermine the potential impact of genetic testing. The current approach in the primary care setting places an exorbitant burden on both providers and patients. Current literature provides insight into how to address barriers across multiple levels (patient, provider, clinic, system) and at multiple stages in the testing process (identification, referral, counseling, and testing) but interventions have had limited success. After outlining the current approach to genetic testing in the primary care setting, including the barriers that prevent genetic testing uptake and the methods proposed to address these issues, we recommend integrating genetic testing into routine medical care through population-based testing. Success in efforts to increase the uptake of genetic testing will not occur without significant changes to the way genetic services are delivered. These changes will not be instantaneous but are critical in moving this field forward to realize the potential for cancer risk genetic assessment to reduce cancer burden.

From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening

Genomic medicine is expanding from a focus on diagnosis at the patient level to prevention at the population level given the ongoing under-ascertainment of high-risk and actionable genetic conditions using current strategies, particularly hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch Syndrome (LS) and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The availability of large-scale next-generation sequencing strategies and preventive options for these conditions makes it increasingly feasible to screen pre-symptomatic individuals through public health-based approaches, rather than restricting testing to high-risk groups. This raises anew, and with urgency, questions about the limits of screening as well as the moral authority and capacity to screen for genetic conditions at a population level. We aimed to answer some of these critical questions by using the WHO Wilson and Jungner criteria to guide a synthesis of current evidence on population genomic screening for HBOC, LS, and FH.

Psychometric of Physicians' Awareness, Attitudes and Performance Questionnaire about Genetic Counseling and Testing

INTRODUCTION

Considering the key role of physicians in providing genetic counseling services and the lack of studies in this field in Iran, it seems necessary to design a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the awareness, attitude, and performance of general and specialist physicians in genetic counseling.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this descriptive study, the design and psychometrics of the questionnaire were performed in 4 steps: first, defining the concept of awareness, attitude, and performance of general and specialist physicians in relation to genetic counseling by reviewing texts and articles; second, designing questionnaire items; third, determining the face and content validity by 10 university experts; and forth, determining reliability using Cronbach's alpha coefficient method.

RESULTS

The primary version of the questionnaire was designed taking into account 60 items during the first and second stages. In the third step, one item was removed and in the final version of the questionnaire 59 items and the content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR) were reported to be 0.98 and 0.92, respectively. Reliability with Cronbach's alpha coefficient was determined 0.82.

CONCLUSION

The final questionnaire with 59 items had appropriate psychometric properties. This questionnaire has the ability to be used by health care providers in health care systems to measure the awareness, attitude, and performance of physicians about genetic counseling. The need for further studies is suggested to measure the other types of validity, such as the structural validity of the questionnaire.

Provider discussion of genetic counseling among high-risk Spanish-preferring Latina breast cancer survivors

Among high-risk breast cancer (BC) survivors, genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) may inform cascade testing and risk management. Compared to non-Hispanic White BC survivors, Spanish-preferring Latina BC survivors are less likely to report discussing GC with a healthcare provider. However, few studies have examined Latinas' experiences with GC/GT, particularly outside of the mainland USA. This study aimed to compare frequency of provider discussion of GC between Spanish-preferring Latina BC survivors living in Florida (FL) and Puerto Rico (PR). We conducted secondary data analysis of baseline assessments from a randomized pilot of an educational intervention for Spanish-preferring Latina BC survivors. Participants (N = 52) were GC/GT-naive, but met clinical criteria for GC/GT referral. Participants self-reported sociodemographic, clinical, and cultural variables, including previous provider discussion of GC. Descriptive statistics characterized frequency of GC discussion. Logistic regression examined the relationships between sociodemographic, clinical, and cultural characteristics and GC discussion. Only 31% of participants reported previous GC discussion. More participants from PR reported having GC discussions (43% vs. 21% in the mainland USA). In multivariable analyses, greater likelihood of GC discussion was associated with PR (vs. mainland USA) residence (odds ratio [OR] = 6.00, p = .03), older age at baseline (OR = 1.19, p = .04), and younger age at BC diagnosis (OR = 0.80, p = .03). Few high-risk Spanish-preferring Latina BC survivors in the mainland USA and PR had discussed GC with their providers. These results highlight a gap in the implementation of evidence-based genetics guidelines. Provider-directed interventions may be needed to increase uptake of GC/GT among Latina BC survivors.

Test/Retest Reliability of a Turkish Version of the Genetics and Genomics in Nursing Practice Survey

Background and Purpose: The Genetics and Genomics in Nursing Practice Survey (GGNPS) was developed to evaluate the use of genetics in clinical practice. This study aimed to translate the GGNPS into Turkish and perform the test/retest reliability. Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional research design was used to collect data. Data were collected two times with ~3-7 weeks apart by using RedCap software. Results: At Time 1, a total of 385 nurses completed the survey; at Time 2, 88 nurses completed the retest survey. Findings show that one item has a slight agreement, 9 items fair agreements and 18 items moderate agreements, and 19 items substantial agreements between Times 1 and 2. Conclusions: The Turkish version of GGNPS appears to be a reliable instrument.

Ethical Considerations in Precision Medicine and Genetic Testing in Internal Medicine Practice: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians

This American College of Physicians position paper aims to inform ethical decision making for the integration of precision medicine and genetic testing into clinical care. Although the positions are primarily intended for practicing physicians, they may apply to other health care professionals and can also inform how health care systems, professional schools, and residency programs integrate genomics into educational and clinical settings. Addressing the challenges of precision medicine and genetic testing will guide ethical and responsible implementation to improve health outcomes.

Integrating hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic counselling and testing into mainstream clinical practice: Legal and ethical challenges

Health professionals not specialized in genetics are expected to take an increasing role in genetic services delivery. This article aims to identify legal and ethical challenges related to a collaborative oncogenetics service model, where non-genetic health professionals provide genetic services to patients. Through a scoping literature review, we identified issues to the provision of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or other hereditary adult cancers, genetic testing under this model. Concerns that arose in the literature were informed consent, lack of adherence to best practice guidelines, lack of education of non-genetic health professionals on the provision of genetic services, psychological impacts of genetic testing, continuity of care, the complexity of genetic test results, confidentiality, risks of medical mismanagement, and the associated medical responsibility liabilities. Despite these challenges, there is a growing consensus towards the feasibility of cancer genetic testing being undertaken by non-genetic healthcare professionals in a collaborative oncogenetics service model.

Genetic testing in prostate cancer management: Considerations informing primary care

Inherited genetic mutations can significantly increase the risk for prostate cancer (PC), may be associated with aggressive disease and poorer outcomes, and can have hereditary cancer implications for men and their families. Germline genetic testing (hereditary cancer genetic testing) is now strongly recommended for patients with advanced/metastatic PC, particularly given the impact on targeted therapy selection or clinical trial options, with expanded National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and endorsement from multiple professional societies. Furthermore, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend genetic testing for men with PC across the stage and risk spectrum and for unaffected men at high risk for PC based on family history to identify hereditary cancer risk. Primary care is a critical field in which providers evaluate men at an elevated risk for PC, men living with PC, and PC survivors for whom germline testing may be indicated. Therefore, there is a critical need to engage and educate primary care providers regarding the role of genetic testing and the impact of results on PC screening, treatment, and cascade testing for family members of affected men. This review highlights key aspects of genetic testing in PC, the role of clinicians, with a focus on primary care, the importance of obtaining a comprehensive family history, current germline testing guidelines, and the impact on precision PC care. With emerging evidence and guidelines, clinical pathways are needed to facilitate integrated genetic education, testing, and counseling services in appropriately selected patients. There is also a need for providers to understand the field of genetic counseling and how best to collaborate to enhance multidisciplinary patient care.

Challenges and Opportunities in Engaging Primary Care Providers in BRCA Testing: Results from the BFOR Study

PURPOSE

Engaging primary care providers (PCPs) in BRCA1/2 testing and results disclosure would increase testing access. The BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study is a prospective study of BRCA1/2 founder mutation screening among individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent that sought to involve participants' PCPs in results disclosure. We used quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate PCPs' perspectives, knowledge, and experience disclosing results in BFOR.

METHODS

Among PCPs nominated by BFOR participants to disclose BRCA1/2 results, we assessed the proportion agreeing to disclose. To examine PCP's perspectives, knowledge, and willingness to disclose results, we surveyed 501 nominated PCPs. To examine PCPs' experiences disclosing results in BFOR, we surveyed 101 PCPs and conducted 10 semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

In the BFOR study overall, PCPs agreed to disclose their patient's results 40.5% of the time. Two hundred thirty-four PCPs (46.7%) responded to the initial survey. Responding PCPs were more likely to agree to disclose patients' results than non-responders (57.3% vs. 28.6%, p<0.001). Among all respondents, most felt very (19.7%) or somewhat (39.1%) qualified to share results. Among PCPs declining to disclose, insufficient knowledge was the most common reason. In multivariable logistic regression, feeling qualified was the only variable significantly associated with agreeing to disclose results (OR 6.53, 95% CI 3.31, 12.88). In post-disclosure surveys (response rate=55%), PCPs reported largely positive experiences. Interview findings suggested that although PCPs valued the study-provided educational materials, they desired better integration of results and decision support into workflows.

CONCLUSION

Barriers exist to incorporating BRCA1/2 testing into primary care. Most PCPs declined to disclose their patients' BFOR results, although survey respondents were motivated and had positive disclosure experiences. PCP training and integrated decision support could be beneficial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03351803), November 24, 2017.

Molecular Pathology Education: A Suggested Framework for Primary Care Resident Training in Genomic Medicine: A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology Training and Education Committee

Developments in genomics are profoundly influencing medical practice. With increasing use of genetic and genomic testing across every aspect of the health care continuum, patients and their families are increasingly turning to primary care physicians (PCPs) for discussion and advice regarding tests, implications, and results. Yet, with the rapid growth of information, technology, and applications, PCPs are finding it challenging to fill the gaps in knowledge and support the growing needs of their patients. A critical component in expanding PCP genomic literacy lies in the education of physicians in training and in practice. Although a framework for developing physician competencies in genomics has already been developed, the Association for Molecular Pathology is uniquely situated to actively utilize the skills of its members to engage and support PCPs in this effort. This report provides an overview and a suggested basic teaching framework, which can be used by molecular professionals in their individual institutions as a starting point for educational outreach.

Incomplete Penetrance of Population-Based Genetic Screening Results in Electronic Health Record

The clinical value of population-based genetic screening projects depends on the actions taken on the findings. The Healthy Nevada Project (HNP) is an all-comer genetic screening and research project based in northern Nevada. HNP participants with CDC Tier 1 findings of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome (LS), or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) are notified and provided with genetic counseling. However, the HNP subsequently takes a “hands-off” approach: it is the responsibility of notified participants to share their findings with their healthcare providers, and providers are expected to implement the recommended action plans. Thus, the HNP presents an opportunity to evaluate the efficiency of participant and provider responses to notification of important genetic findings, using electronic health records (EHRs) at Renown Health (a large regional hospital in northern Nevada). Out of 520 HNP participants with findings, we identified 250 participants who were notified of their findings and who had an EHR. 107 of these participants responded to a survey, with 76 (71%) indicating that they had shared their findings with their healthcare providers. However, a sufficiently specific genetic diagnosis appeared in the EHRs and problem lists of only 22 and 10%, respectively, of participants without prior knowledge. Furthermore, review of participant EHRs provided evidence of possible relevant changes in clinical care for only a handful of participants. Up to 19% of participants would have benefited from earlier screening due to prior presentation of their condition. These results suggest that continuous support for both participants and their providers is necessary to maximize the benefit of population-based genetic screening. We recommend that genetic screening projects require participants’ consent to directly document their genetic findings in their EHRs. Additionally, we recommend that they provide healthcare providers with ongoing training regarding documentation of findings and with clinical decision support regarding subsequent care.

Education and Training of Non-Genetics Providers on the Return of Genome Sequencing Results in a NICU Setting

To meet current and expected future demand for genome sequencing in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), adjustments to traditional service delivery models are necessary. Effective programs for the training of non-genetics providers (NGPs) may address the known barriers to providing genetic services including limited genetics knowledge and lack of confidence. The SouthSeq project aims to use genome sequencing to make genomic diagnoses in the neonatal period and evaluate a scalable approach to delivering genome sequencing results to populations with limited access to genetics professionals. Thirty-three SouthSeq NGPs participated in a live, interactive training intervention and completed surveys before and after participation. Here, we describe the protocol for the provider training intervention utilized in the SouthSeq study and the associated impact on NGP knowledge and confidence in reviewing, interpreting, and using genome sequencing results. Participation in the live training intervention led to an increased level of confidence in critical skills needed for real-world implementation of genome sequencing. Providers reported a significant increase in confidence level in their ability to review, understand, and use genome sequencing result reports to guide patient care. Reported barriers to implementation of genome sequencing in a NICU setting included test cost, lack of insurance coverage, and turn around time. As implementation of genome sequencing in this setting progresses, effective education of NGPs is critical to provide access to high-quality and timely genomic medicine care.

Characteristics and experiences of patients from a community-based and consumer-directed hereditary cancer population screening initiative

A clinical hereditary cancer population screening initiative, called Information is Power, began in North Alabama in 2015. After 4 years of the initiative, we were interested in exploring (1) the characteristics and motivations for patients who self-refer to population genetic testing, (2) how patients make decisions on testing, (3) what patients do with results, and (4) patient perceptions of benefits and limitations after undergoing population genetic testing. Patients who consented to research recontact at time of test ordering were sent an electronic survey with the option for a follow-up phone interview. Among the 2,918 eligible patients, 239 responded to the survey and 19 completed an interview. Survey and interview participants were highly educated information seekers motivated by learning more about their health. Those who were previously interested in hereditary cancer testing reported barriers were cost and insurance coverage, access to testing, and uncertainty how results could impact their health. Many participants (77%) communicated with family and friends about their decision to test and communicated about test results. Fewer participants (23%) discussed the decision to test with their healthcare providers; however, 58% of participants discussed their test results with a healthcare provider. Most people (96%) with negative results accurately recalled their results. In contrast, three out of 11 positive results for heterozygous MUTYH, PALB2, and BRCA2 reported receiving negative results. This study contributes to knowledge on population genetic testing and may guide other population genetic testing programs as they develop enrollment materials and educational materials and consider downstream needs of population genetic testing participants.

Comparison of a Focused Family Cancer History Questionnaire to Family History Documentation in the Electronic Medical Record

INTRODUCTION

Family health history can be a valuable indicator of risk to develop certain cancers. Unfortunately, patient self-reported family history often contains inaccuracies, which might change recommendations for cancer screening. We endeavored to understand the difference between a patient's self-reported family history and their electronic medical record (EMR) family history. One aim of this study was to determine if family history information contained in the EMR differs from patient-reported family history collected using a focused questionnaire.

METHODS

We created the Hereditary Cancer Questionnaire (HCQ) based on current guidelines and distributed to 314 patients in the Department of Family Medicine waiting room June 20 to August 1, 2018. The survey queried patients about specific cancers within their biological family to assess their risk of an inherited cancer syndrome. We used the questionnaire responses as a baseline when comparing family histories in the medical record.

RESULTS

Agreement between the EMR and the questionnaire data decreased as the patients' risk for familial cancer increased. Meaning that the more significant a patient's family cancer history, the less likely it was to be recorded accurately and consistently in the EMR. Patients with low-risk levels, or fewer instances of cancer in the family, had more consistencies between the EMR and the questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that physicians often make recommendations on incomplete information that is in the EMR, patients might not receive individualized preventive care based on a more complete family cancer history. This is especially true for individuals with more complicated and significant family history of cancer. An improved method of collecting family history, including increasing patient engagement, may help to decrease this disparity.

Assessing Medical Students' Knowledge of Genetics: Basis for Improving Genetics Curriculum for Future Clinical Practice

PURPOSE

The knowledge of genetics among medical students was assessed to identify and analyze gaps that serve as bases for the revision of the current genetics curriculum of the (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery) MBBS Program of the College of Medicine at Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University (PNU).

METHODS

A 65-item multiple-choice (MCQs) test in Genetics was administered to 71 second and fourth-year medical students to assess their knowledge in Genetics. MCQs were validated and tested for their reliability. Self-assessment of students' genetics knowledge was also determined by asking them whether their knowledge in genetics is sufficient or not sufficient for their future clinical practice. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.

RESULTS

Forty-one second-year and thirty fourth-year medical students took the Genetic test. Exam results showed insufficient knowledge of Genetics, with 43.85% among the students answering the exam correctly. In self-assessment, the majority (83.3% to 87.8%) of the respondents considered their knowledge of genetics insufficient for future clinical practice. A higher knowledge level of basic genetics compared with clinically related genetics concepts was observed. Generally, second-year students significantly scored higher in molecular and cytogenetics (P=0.012), principles of genetic transmission (P=0.022), and inheritance of genetic diseases (P=0.024), compared with the fourth-year medical students who only scored higher in items related to cancer genetics (P=0.022).

CONCLUSION

Medical students' genetics knowledge is insufficient, especially on clinically oriented concepts like genetic testing and genetic counseling and should be strengthened for future clinical practice. The fourth-year medical students do not retain the knowledge of genetics; thus, integrating medical genetics in clinical years is imperative.

Australian human research ethics committee members' confidence in reviewing genomic research applications

Human research ethics committees (HRECs) are evaluating increasing quantities of genomic research applications with complex ethical considerations. Genomic confidence is reportedly low amongst many non-genetics-experts; however, no studies have evaluated genomic confidence levels in HREC members specifically. This study used online surveys to explore genomic confidence levels, predictors of confidence, and genomics resource needs of members from 185 HRECs across Australia. Surveys were fully or partially completed by 145 members. All reported having postgraduate 94 (86%) and/or bachelor 15 (14%) degrees. Participants consisted mainly of researchers (n = 45, 33%) and lay members (n = 41, 30%), affiliated with either public health services (n = 73, 51%) or public universities (n = 31, 22%). Over half had served their HREC [Formula: see text]3 years. Fifty (44%) reviewed genomic studies [Formula: see text]3 times annually. Seventy (60%) had undertaken some form of genomic education. While most (94/103, 91%) had high genomic literacy based on familiarity with genomic terms, average genomic confidence scores (GCS) were moderate (5.7/10, n = 119). Simple linear regression showed that GCS was positively associated with years of HREC service, frequency of reviewing genomic applications, undertaking self-reported genomic education, and familiarity with genomic terms (p < 0.05 for all). Conversely, lay members and/or those relying on others when reviewing genomic studies had lower GCSs (p < 0.05 for both). Most members (n = 83, 76%) agreed further resources would be valuable when reviewing genomic research applications, and online courses and printed materials were preferred. In conclusion, even well-educated HREC members familiar with genomic terms lack genomic confidence, which could be enhanced with additional genomic education and/or resources.

Positive experiences of healthcare professionals with a mainstreaming approach of germline genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer

According to current guidelines, all women with epithelial ovarian cancer are eligible for genetic testing for BRCA germline pathogenic variants. Unfortunately, not all affected women are tested. We evaluated the acceptability and feasibility for non-genetic healthcare professionals to incorporate germline genetic testing into their daily practice. We developed and implemented a mainstreaming pathway, including a training module, in collaboration with various healthcare professionals and patient organizations. Healthcare professionals from 4 different hospitals were invited to participate. After completing the training module, gynecologic oncologists, gynecologists with a subspecialty training in oncology, and nurse specialists discussed and ordered genetic testing themselves. They received a questionnaire before completing the training module and 6 months after working according to the new pathway. We assessed healthcare professionals’ attitudes, perceived knowledge, and self-efficacy, along with the feasibility of this new mainstream workflow in clinical practice, and evaluated the use and content of the training module. The participation rate for completing the training module was 90% (N = 19/21). At baseline and after 6 months, healthcare professionals had a positive attitude, high perceived knowledge and high self-efficacy toward discussing and ordering genetic testing. Knowledge had increased significantly after 6 months. The training module was rated with an average of 8.1 out of 10 and was considered useful. The majority of healthcare professionals (9/15) was able to discuss a genetic test in five to 10 min. After completion of a training module, non-genetic healthcare professionals feel motivated and competent to discuss and order genetic testing themselves.

Evaluating Primary Care Providers' Readiness for Delivering Genetic and Genomic Services to Underserved Populations

INTRODUCTION

Increased genomics knowledge and access are advancing precision medicine and care delivery. With the translation of precision medicine across health care, genetics and genomics will play a greater role in primary care services. Health disparities and inadequate representation of racial and ethnically diverse groups threaten equitable access for those historically underserved. Health provider awareness, knowledge, and perceived importance are important determinants of the utilization of genomic applications.

METHODS

We evaluated the readiness of primary care providers at a Federally Qualified Health Center, the Community Health Center, Inc. (CHCI) for delivering genetic and genomic testing to underserved populations. Online survey questions focused on providers' education and training in basic and clinical genetics, familiarity with current genetic tests, and needs for incorporating genetics and genomics into their current practice.

RESULTS

Fifty of 77 (65%) primary care providers responded to the survey. Less than half received any training in basic or clinical genetics (40%), were familiar with specific genetic tests (36%), or felt confident with collecting family health history (44%), and 70% believed patients would benefit from genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Despite knowledge gaps, respondents recognized the value and need to bring these services to their patients, though would like more education on applying genetics and genomics into their practice, and more training about discussing risk factors associated with race or ethnicity. We provide further evidence of the need for educational resources and standardized guidelines for providers caring for underserved populations to optimize appropriate use and referral of genetic and genomic services and to reduce disparities in care.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Primary Prevention Advice in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Provider Attitudes and Routine Behaviours

Implementing risk-stratified breast cancer screening is being considered internationally. It has been suggested that primary care will need to take a role in delivering this service, including risk assessment and provision of primary prevention advice. This systematic review aimed to assess the acceptability of these tasks to primary care providers. Five databases were searched up to July-August 2020, yielding 29 eligible studies, of which 27 were narratively synthesised. The review was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42020197676). Primary care providers report frequently collecting breast cancer family history information, but rarely using quantitative tools integrating additional risk factors. Primary care providers reported high levels of discomfort and low confidence with respect to risk-reducing medications although very few reported doubts about the evidence base underpinning their use. Insufficient education/training and perceived discomfort conducting both tasks were notable barriers. Primary care providers are more likely to accept an increased role in breast cancer risk assessment than advising on risk-reducing medications. To realise the benefits of risk-based screening and prevention at a population level, primary care will need to proactively assess breast cancer risk and advise on risk-reducing medications. To facilitate this, adaptations to infrastructure such as integrated tools are necessary in addition to provision of education.

Oncologists' Perceptions of Tumor Genomic Profiling and the Communication of Test Results and Risks

Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) identifies genetic targets for precision cancer treatments. The complexity of TGP can expose gaps in oncologists' skills, complicating test interpretation and patient communication. Research on oncologists' use and perceptions of TGP could inform practice patterns and training needs. To study this, a sample of oncologists was surveyed to assess TGP use, perceptions, and perceived skills in TGP interpretation/communication, especially in communication of hereditary risks. Genomic self-efficacy and TGP knowledge were also assessed. The goal sample (n = 50) was accrued from 12/2019 to 1/2020. Respondents were primarily medical oncologists (78%) with >10 (mean 17.7) years of practice experience. TGP use was moderate/high (median 50 [range 2-398]) tests/year. Most oncologists reported informal/no training in interpretation (72%) or communication (86%) of TGP results and risks. Genomic self-efficacy was high and was associated with higher use of TGP (p = 0.047). Perceptions of the benefits and limitations of TGP were mixed: heterogeneity was seen by years of experience, TGP use, and knowledge. Most participants agreed that additional training in TGP communication was needed, especially in communication of hereditary risks, and that an online training tool would be useful (86%). We conclude that oncologists are frequently using TGP despite having mixed views about its utility and not feeling prepared to communicate risks to patients. Oncologists receive little education in interpreting TGP or communicating its results and risks, and would value training in this area.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences with Population Genetic Testing Offered Through a Primary Care Network

Aims: To explore patient experiences in a large-scale primary care-based, preemptive genetic testing program.

Methods: Patients who received genetic results from the initiative were invited to participate in an online survey 3 weeks postresult disclosure. A 6-month follow-up survey was sent to assess changes over time.

Results: The initial survey was completed by 1646 patients, with 544 completing the 6-month follow-up survey. The following outcomes were high overall: patient-reported understanding of results (cancer: 87%; cardiac: 86%); perceived utility (75%); positive emotions (relieved: 66.8%; happy: 62.0%); family result sharing (67.6%); and satisfaction (87%), although analysis by demographic factors identified groups who may benefit from additional education and emotional support. Results-related health behaviors and discussions with providers increased over time (screening procedures 6.1% to 14.2% p < 0.001; provider discussion 10.3% to 25.3%, p < 0.001), and were more likely to take place for patients with positive cancer and/or cardiac results (39.8% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). Forty-seven percent of patients reported insurance discrimination concerns, and most (79.4%) were not familiar with privacy and nondiscrimination laws. Concerns regarding discrimination and negative emotions decreased between the two survey time points (privacy issues 44.6% to 35.1% p < 0.001; life insurance discrimination concerns 35.5% to 29.6%, p = 0.001; anxiety 8.1% to 3.3%, p < 0.001; and uncertainty 19.8% to 12.8%, p < 0.001). These findings led to the development and integration of additional patient resources to improve program implementation.

Conclusion: Our findings highlight patient experiences with and areas of need in a community-based genomic screening pilot initiative using a mixed primary care/genetics provider model to deliver precision medicine.

How practice setting affects family physicians' views on genetic screening: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Genetic screening (GS), defined as the clinical testing of a population to identify asymptomatic individuals with the aim of providing those identified as high risk with prevention, early treatment, or reproductive options. Genetic screening (GS) improves patient outcomes and is accessible to the community. Family physicians (FPs) are ideally placed to offer GS. There is a need for FPs to adopt GS to address anticipated genetic specialist shortages.

OBJECTIVE

To explore FP attitudes, perceived roles, motivators and barriers, towards GS; and explore similarities and differences between private and public sector FPs.

METHODS

We developed a semi-structured interview guide using existing literature. We interviewed private and public sector FPs recruited by purposive, convenience and snowballing strategies, by telephone or video to theme saturation. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded for themes by two independent researchers with an adjudicator.

RESULTS

Thirty FPs were interviewed (15 private, 15 public). Theme saturation was reached for each group. A total of 12 themes (6 common, 3 from private-practice participants, 3 public-employed participants) emerged. Six common major themes emerged: personal lack of training and experience, roles and relevance of GS to family medicine, reluctance and resistance to adding GS to practice, FP motivations for adoption, patient factors as barrier, and potential solutions. Three themes (all facilitators) were unique to the private group: strong rapport with patients, high practice autonomy, and high patient literacy. Three themes (all barriers) were unique to the public group: lack of control, patients' lower socioeconomic status, and rigid administrative infrastructure.

CONCLUSION

FPs are motivated to incorporate GS but need support for implementation. Policy-makers should consider the practice setting when introducing new screening functions. Strategies to change FP behaviours should be sensitive to their sense of autonomy, and the external factors (either as facilitators or as barriers) shaping FP practices in a given clinical setting.

Engaging Men With BRCA-Related Cancer Risks: Practical Advice for BRCA Risk Management From Male Stakeholders

Men are at risk for developing hereditary cancers such as breast, prostate, pancreatic, and melanoma due to a pathogenic germline variant in either the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. The purpose of this study was to identify and provide practical advice for men managing their BRCA-related cancer risks based on men's real-life experiences. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 25 men who either tested positive for a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2 gene or who had an immediate family member who had tested positive for a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2. A thematic analysis of the interview transcripts was completed utilizing the constant comparison method. Qualitative analysis produced three categories of participant advice for men who recently learned of their hereditary cancer risk. Specifically, participants advised the following: (a) know the basics, (b) engage in the family narrative, and (c) advocate for yourself. Results showed the need for men to know and understand their BRCA cancer risks and communicate that genetic risk information to their family members and practitioners. In particular, the findings stress the importance of addressing men's risks and medical management from a family-focused approach. Overall, because men are historically undereducated about their BRCA-related cancer risks, this practical advice serves as a first step for men managing BRCA-related cancer risks and may ultimately assist them in making preventive and screening health behaviors.

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 .

Training courses on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer to strengthen cross-sectoral care in underserved areas

OBJECTIVE

To strengthen cross-sectoral care by disseminating specialized knowledge about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer across underserved areas.

METHODS

We report on a training course about genetic counseling and testing of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer patients for gynecologists from certified cancer centers. In total, 50 gynecologists attended the course which was offered once annually between 2017 and 2019. Before and after the course, participants were asked to answer a self-assessment questionnaire and completed the training with a multiple-choice test. The results of the self-assessments and knowledge tests were analyzed to steadily improve the training.

RESULTS

The self-assessments imply a perceived increase in certainty regarding the inclusion criteria for specialized genetic counseling, pedigree analysis, and contents of the initial consultation. Both the knowledge tests and self-assessments showed that participants had difficulties in interpreting and differentiating between age-specific and lifetime risks.

CONCLUSION

The courses successfully conveyed knowledge necessary to identify patients at risk and to provide timely genetic analyses even in rural areas.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The results are a promising basis for creating additional training courses addressing specialists in hospitals and gynecological practices. Further education of physicians might improve cross-sectoral cooperation and thereby enable specialized care supply in rural areas.

"I think that a brief conversation from their provider can go a very long way": Patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators of genetic testing after ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Identify predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting genetic counseling/testing among ovarian cancer patients guided by Green and Kreuter's PRECEDE-PROCEED model.

METHODS

Gynecologic oncology providers (N = 4), genetic counselors (N = 4), and ovarian cancer patients (N = 9) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring participants' knowledge of and experiences with genetic counseling/testing. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive content analysis by two independent raters.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting referral for and uptake of genetic counseling/testing. Predisposing factors included participant's knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes related to genetic counseling/testing. Both patients and providers also cited that insurance coverage and out-of-pocket cost are major concerns for ovarian cancer patients considering genetic testing. Finally, both patients and providers emphasized that genetic counseling/testing would provide additional information to an ovarian cancer patient. While providers emphasized that genetic testing results were useful for informing a patient's personal treatment plan, patients emphasized that this knowledge would be beneficial for their family members.

CONCLUSION

Barriers to genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients exist at multiple levels, including the patient (e.g., knowledge, attitudes), the provider (e.g., workload, availability of services), the institution (e.g., difficulty with referrals/scheduling), and the healthcare system (e.g., insurance/cost). Interventions aiming to increase genetic testing among ovarian cancer patients will likely need to target multiple levels of influence. Future quantitative studies are needed to replicate these results. This line of work will inform specific multilevel intervention strategies that are adaptable to different practice settings, ultimately improving guideline concordant care.

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.

The Knowledge and Attitude of Patients Diagnosed with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer towards Genetic Testing

This study assessed the knowledge and attitude of patients with ovarian cancer (OC) toward OC and next generation sequencing (NGS). The data, including characteristics of patients, their knowledge about OC and their knowledge and attitude of NGS, were collected from June to October 2018. Of the 103 participants, 70.9% (n = 73) had cancer within the second-degree relatives, and 18.4% (n = 19) had BRCA pathogenic mutations. The percentage of right answer for the knowledge about OC and NGS was 64.7% (11/17) and 50% (6/12), respectively. The median number of patients who had positive expectations for the genetic test was 34 (range, 22-44). Based on a first-degree familial history, patients had a different degree of knowledge about OC (11 vs. 8.5, p = 0.026) and NGS (6.5 vs. 5, p = 0.011), but patients with a BRCA pathogenic mutation did not have a different degree of knowledge about OC and NGS panel testing. High-income families had a more positive attitude towards the genetic test than low-income families (p = 0.005). Women with OC do not have enough knowledge about OC (11/17, 64.7%) and NGS (6/12, 50%) but they showed a positive attitude toward the NGS test. These women need OC and NGS educational intervention.

Implementation outcomes of Humanwide: integrated precision health in team-based family practice primary care

Background

Humanwide was precision health embedded in primary care aiming to leverage high-tech and high-touch medicine to promote wellness, predict and prevent illness, and tailor treatment to individual medical and psychosocial needs.

Methods

We conducted a study assessing implementation outcomes to inform spread and scale, using mixed methods of semi-structured interviews with diverse stakeholders and chart reviews.

Humanwide included: 1) health coaching; 2) four digital health tools for blood-pressure, weight, glucose, and activity; 3) pharmacogenomic testing; and 4) genetic screening/testing. We examined implementation science constructs: reach/penetration, acceptability, feasibility, and sustainability. Chart reviews captured preliminary clinical outcomes.

Results

Fifty of 69 patients (72%) invited by primary care providers participated in the Humanwide pilot. We performed chart reviews for the 50 participating patients. Participants were diverse overall (50% non-white, 66% female). Over half of the participants were obese and 58% had one or more major cardiovascular risk factor: dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes. Reach/penetration of Humanwide components varied: pharmacogenomics testing 94%, health coaching 80%, genetic testing 72%, and digital health 64%. Interview participants (n=27) included patients (n=16), providers (n=9), and the 2 staff who were allocated dedicated time for Humanwide patient intake and orientation. Patients and providers reported Humanwide was acceptable; it engaged patients holistically, supported faster medication titration, and strengthened patient-provider relationships. All patients benefited clinically from at least one Humanwide component. Feasibility challenges included: low provider self-efficacy for interpreting genetics and pharmacogenomics; difficulties with data integration; patient technology challenges; and additional staffing needs. Patient financial burden concerns surfaced with respect to sustainability.

Conclusion

This is the first report of implementation of a multi-component precision health model embedded in team-based primary care. We found acceptance from both patients and providers; however, feasibility barriers must be overcome to enable broad spread and sustainability. We found that barriers to implementation of precision health in a team-based primary care clinic are mundane and straightforward, though not necessarily easy to overcome. Future implementation endeavors should invest in basics: education, workflow, and reflection/evaluation. Strengthening fundamentals will enable healthcare systems to more nimbly accept the responsibility of meeting patients at the crossroads of innovative science and routinized clinical systems.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01373-4.

Primary Care Physician Experiences with Integrated Population-Scale Genetic Testing: A Mixed-Methods Assessment

The scalable delivery of genomic medicine requires collaboration between genetics and non-genetics providers. Thus, it is essential to investigate and address the perceived value of and barriers to incorporating genetic testing into the clinical practice of primary care providers (PCPs). We used a mixed-methods approach of qualitative interviews and surveys to explore the experience of PCPs involved in the pilot DNA-10K population genetic testing program. Similar to previous research, PCPs reported low confidence with tasks related to ordering, interpreting and managing the results of genetic tests, and identified the need for additional education. PCPs endorsed high levels of utility for patients and their families but noted logistical challenges to incorporating genetic testing into their practice. Overall PCPs were not familiar with the United States' Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and they expressed high levels of concern for patient data privacy and potential insurance discrimination. This PCP feedback led to the development and implementation of several processes to improve the PCP experience with the DNA-10K program. These results contribute to the knowledge base regarding genomic implementation using a mixed provider model and may be beneficial for institutions developing similar clinical programs.

Population Screening for Inherited Predisposition to Breast and Ovarian Cancer

The discovery of genes underlying inherited predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer has revolutionized the ability to identify women at high risk for these diseases before they become affected. Women who are carriers of deleterious variants in these genes can undertake surveillance and prevention measures that have been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality. However, under current strategies, the vast majority of women carriers remain undetected until they become affected. In this review, we show that universal testing, particularly of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, fulfills classical disease screening criteria. This is especially true for BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Ashkenazi Jews but is translatable to all populations and may include additional genes. Utilizing genetic information for large-scale precision prevention requires a paradigmatic shift in health-care delivery. To address this need, we propose a direct-to-patient model, which is increasingly pertinent for fulfilling the promise of utilizing personal genomic information for disease prevention.