Disparities in Genetic Testing and Care among Black women with Hereditary Breast Cancer

Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer Genetic Testing May be Mitigated by Counseling

BACKGROUND

Currently, racial disparities exist in access to genetic testing. Recent developments have helped narrow the gap in accessibility. The purpose of this study was to determine whether racial disparities in genetic consultation attendance and completion of genetic testing persist, and, if so, factors that contribute to under-utilization of these resources.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review of breast patients referred for genetic counseling between 2017 and 2019 was performed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression evaluated factors associated with genetic counseling attendance and genetic testing.

RESULTS

A total of 596 patients were referred for genetic counseling: 433 (72.7%) white; 138 (23.2%) black; and 25 (4.2%) other or unknown. In multivariate analysis, black patients, patients without breast cancer family history, and patients without a current cancer diagnosis, classified as high risk, were significantly less likely to attend their genetics appointment (p = 0.010, p = 0.007, p = 0.005, respectively). Age, insurance type, distance from facility, and need for chemotherapy did not significantly impact consult completion rate. Of the patients who completed a genetic consult, 84.4% (n = 248) had genetic testing and 17.7% (n = 44) had a pathogenic variant. For patients who attended counseling, there were no significant factors that were predictive with receipt of genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, there was a significant association between race and attending genetic counseling. Once counseled, most patients went on to receive genetic testing, and racial disparities in testing disappeared, emphasizing the value of providing additional education about the importance and purpose of genetic testing.

Biomarker profiling and integrating heterogeneous models for enhanced multi-grade breast cancer prognostication

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer remains a leading cause of female mortality worldwide, exacerbated by limited awareness, inadequate screening resources, and treatment options. Accurate and early diagnosis is crucial for improving survival rates and effective treatment.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to develop an innovative artificial intelligence (AI) based model for predicting breast cancer and its various histopathological grades by integrating multiple biomarkers and subject age, thereby enhancing diagnostic accuracy and prognostication.

METHODS

A novel ensemble-based machine learning (ML) framework has been introduced that integrates three distinct biomarkers-beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG), Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1), and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP)-alongside subject age. Hyperparameter optimization was performed using the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm, and minority oversampling techniques were employed to mitigate overfitting. The model's performance was validated through rigorous five-fold cross-validation.

RESULTS

The proposed model demonstrated superior performance, achieving a 97.93% accuracy and a 98.06% F1-score on meticulously labeled test data across diverse age groups. Comparative analysis showed that the model outperforms state-of-the-art approaches, highlighting its robustness and generalizability.

CONCLUSION

By providing a comprehensive analysis of multiple biomarkers and effectively predicting tumor grades, this study offers a significant advancement in breast cancer screening, particularly in regions with limited medical resources. The proposed framework has the potential to reduce breast cancer mortality rates and improve early intervention and personalized treatment strategies.

Racial disparities in breast cancer risk factors and risk management

Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes are well described across the spectrum of screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Breast cancer mortality is markedly elevated for Non-Hispanic Black women compared with other racial and ethnic groups, with multifactorial causes. Here, we aim to reduce this burden by identifying disparities in breast cancer risk factors, risk assessment, and risk management before breast cancer is diagnosed. We describe a reproductive profile and modifiable risk factors specific to the development of triple-negative breast cancer. We also propose that screening strategies should be both risk- and race-based, given the prevalence of early-onset triple-negative breast cancer in young Black women. We emphasize the importance of early risk assessment and identification of patients at hereditary and familial risk and discuss indications for a high-risk referral. We discuss the subtleties following genetic testing and highlight "uncertain" genetic testing results and risk estimation challenges in women who test negative. We trace aspects of the obesity epidemic in the Black community to infant feeding patterns and emphasize healthy eating and activity. Finally, we discuss building an environment of trust to foster adherence to recommendations, follow-up care, and participation in clinical trials. Addressing relevant social determinants of health; educating patients and clinicians on factors impacting disparities in outcomes; and encouraging participation in targeted, culturally sensitive research are essential to best serve all communities.

Reclassification of Variants Following Renal Genetics Testing: Uncommon Yet Impactful for Diagnosis and Management

Introduction

Genetic testing is increasingly utilized in nephrology practice, but limited real-world data exist on variant reclassification following renal genetics testing.

Methods

A cohort of patients at the Cleveland Clinic Renal Genetics Clinic who underwent genetic testing through clinical laboratories was assessed with their clinical and laboratory data analyzed.

Results

Between January 2019 and June 2023, 425 new patients with variable kidney disorders from 413 pedigrees completed genetic testing through 10 clinical laboratories, including 255 (60%) females with median (25th, 75th percentiles) age of 36 (22-54) years. Multigene panel was the most frequently used modality followed by single-gene testing, exome sequencing (ES), chromosomal microarray (CMA), and genome sequencing (GS). At initial report, 52% of patients had ≥1 variants of uncertain significance (VUS) with or without concurrent pathogenic variant(s). Twenty amendments were issued across 19 pedigrees involving 19 variants in 17 genes. The overall variant reclassification rate was 5%, with 63% being upgrades and 32% downgrades. Of the reclassified variants, 79% were initially reported as VUS. The median time-to-amendments from initial reports was 8.4 (4-27) months. Following the variant reclassifications, 60% of the patients received a new diagnosis or a change in diagnosis. Among these, 67% of patients received significant changes in clinical management.

Conclusion

Variant reclassification following genetic testing is infrequent but important for diagnosis and management of patients with suspected genetic kidney disease. The majority of variant reclassifications involve VUS and are upgrades in clinically issued amended reports. Further studies are needed to investigate the predictors of such events.

Integration and usability of a digital cancer risk stratification tool to optimize identification of patients at risk for hereditary cancers: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Patients with a personal or family history of cancer may have elevated risk of developing future cancers, which often remains unrecognized due to lapses in screening. This pilot study assessed the usability and clinical outcomes of a cancer risk stratification tool in a gynecologic oncology clinic.

METHODS

New gynecologic oncology patients were prompted to complete a commercially developed personal and family history-based risk stratification tool to assess eligibility for genetic testing using National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and estimated lifetime breast cancer risk using the Tyrer-Cuzick model. After use of the risk stratification tool, usability was assessed via completion rate and the System Usability Scale, and health literacy was assessed using the BRIEF Health Literacy Screening Tool.

RESULTS

130 patients were prompted to complete the risk stratification tool; 93 (72%) completed the tool. Race and ethnicity and insurance type were not associated with tool completion. The median System Usability Scale score was 83 out of 100 (interquartile range, 60-95). Health literacy positively correlated with perceived usability. Public insurance and race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White was associated with lower perceived usability. Sixty (65%) patients met eligibility criteria for genetic testing, and 21 (38% of 56 eligible patients) were candidates for enhanced breast cancer screening based on an estimated lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥20%.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of patients completed the digital cancer risk stratification tool. Older age, lower health literacy, public insurance, and race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White were associated with lower perceived tool usability.

Gynecologic Care of Black Breast Cancer Survivors

Purpose of Review

Black patients suffer from breast cancer-related racial health disparities, which could have implications on their gynecologic care. This review explores considerations in the gynecologic care of Black breast cancer survivors.

Recent Findings

Black people have a higher risk of leiomyoma and endometrial cancer, which could confound bleeding patterns such as in the setting of tamoxifen use. As Black people are more likely to have early-onset breast cancer, this may have implications on long-term bone and heart health. Black patients may be more likely to have menopausal symptoms at baseline and as a result of breast cancer treatment. Furthermore, Black patients are less likely to utilize assisted reproductive technology and genetic testing services.

Summary

It is important for healthcare providers to be well-versed in the intersections of breast cancer and gynecologic care. Black breast cancer survivors may have unique considerations for which practitioners should be knowledgeable.

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

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

A Public Health Emergency: Breast Cancer Among Black Communities in the United States

While Black people have a similar incidence of breast cancer compared to White people, they have a 40% increased death rate. Black people are more likely to be diagnosed with aggressive subtypes such as triple-negative breast cancer. However, despite biological factors, systemic racism and social determinants of health create delays in care and barriers to treatment. While genetic testing holds incredible promise for Black people, uptake remains low and results may be challenging to interpret. There is a need for more robust, multidisciplinary, and antiracist interventions to reverse breast cancer-related racial disparities.

Disparities in genetic testing for breast cancer among black and Hispanic women in the United States

Women from racial and ethnic minorities are at a higher risk for developing breast cancer. Despite significant advancements in breast cancer screening, treatment, and overall survival rates, disparities persist among Black and Hispanic women. These disparities manifest as breast cancer at an earlier age with worse prognosis, lower rates of genetic screening, higher rates of advanced-stage diagnosis, and higher rates of breast cancer mortality compared to Caucasian women. The underutilization of available resources, such as genetic testing, counseling, and risk assessment tools, by Black and Hispanic women is one of many reasons contributing to these disparities. This review aims to explore the racial disparities that exist in genetic testing among Black and Hispanic women. Barriers that contribute to racial disparities include limited access to resources, insufficient knowledge and awareness, inconsistent care management, and slow progression of incorporation of genetic data and information from women of racial/ethnic minorities into risk assessment models and genetic databases. These barriers continue to impede rates of genetic testing and counseling among Black and Hispanic mothers. Consequently, it is imperative to address these barriers to promote early risk assessment, genetic testing and counseling, early detection rates, and ultimately, lower mortality rates among women belonging to racial and ethnic minorities.

Germline Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer: ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop recommendations for germline mutation testing for patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

An ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) panel convened to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and formal consensus process.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles met eligibility criteria for the germline mutation testing recommendations; 18 for the genetic counseling recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

BRCA1/2 mutation testing should be offered to all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer ≤65 years and select patients >65 years based on personal history, family history, ancestry, or eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy. All patients with recurrent breast cancer who are candidates for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered BRCA1/2 testing, regardless of family history. BRCA1/2 testing should be offered to women who develop a second primary cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast. For patients with prior history of breast cancer and without active disease, testing should be offered to patients diagnosed ≤65 years and selectively in patients diagnosed after 65 years, if it will inform personal and family risk. Testing for high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/2 should be offered to those with supportive family histories; testing for moderate-penetrance genes may be offered if necessary to inform personal and family cancer risk. Patients should be provided enough pretest information for informed consent; those with pathogenic variants should receive individualized post-test counseling. Variants of uncertain significance should not impact management, and patients with such variants should be followed for reclassification. Referral to providers experienced in clinical cancer genetics may help facilitate patient selection and interpretation of expanded testing, and provide counseling of individuals without pathogenic germline variants but with significant family history.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Racial Disparities in Accessing Care along the Continuum of Cancer Genetic Service Delivery

BACKGROUND

Public health calls to ensure equity in genomics and precision medicine necessitate a closer examination of how these efforts might differentially affect access to genetic services across demographic subgroups. This study set out to examine racial/ethnic disparities along the cancer genetic service delivery continuum.

METHODS

Retrospective data are drawn from 15 clinical sites across 6 U.S. States. Individuals who screened at-risk for hereditary cancer were: (i) referred/scheduled to see a genetic counselor (referral workflow), or (ii) offered genetic testing at the point-of-care (POC testing workflow). Logistic regression analyses evaluated the associations between race/ethnicity and several outcomes including appointment scheduling, genetic counseling, and genetic testing, controlling for demographics, clinical factors, and county-level covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 14,527 patients were identified at-risk. Genetic testing uptake was significantly higher at POC sites than referral sites (34% POC vs. 11% referral, P < 0.001). Race/ethnicity was significantly associated with testing uptake among all sites, with non-Hispanic Blacks having lower odds of testing compared with non-Hispanic Whites [aOR = 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71-1.00; P = 0.049]. Moreover, this disparity was observed at referral sites, but not POC sites. Among patients scheduled, non-Hispanic Blacks had lower odds of counseling (aOR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.17-0.47; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that factors influencing genetic counseling show rates may be driving disparities in genetic testing.

IMPACT

Strategies to reduce barriers to seeing a genetic counselor, including modifications to clinical workflow, may help mitigate racial/ethnic disparities in genetic testing.

Hereditary cancer testing in a diverse sample across three breast imaging centers

PURPOSE

Up to 10% of all breast cancers (BC) are attributed to inherited pathogenic variants (PV) in BC susceptibility genes; however, most carriers of PVs remain unidentified. Here, we sought to determine the yield of hereditary cancer gene PVs among diverse women attending breast imaging centers, who could benefit from enhanced surveillance and/or risk reduction interventions.

METHODS

This cross-sectional retrospective cohort study included consecutive women, unselected for personal or family cancer history, who were offered genetic testing for hereditary cancer genes at the time of breast imaging at three centers (November 2020-March 2022).

RESULTS

Among 1943 patients (median age: 66 years), self-reported race/ethnicity was White (34.5%), Hispanic (27.7%), African American (17.9%), Asian (4.5%), Ashkenazi Jewish (0.6%), Other (3.5%), and missing (13.0%). Thirty-nine patients (2%) were identified as carriers of a PV in an autosomal dominant clinically actionable hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC)-related or Lynch syndrome gene, most frequently, BRCA2 (6/39; 15.4%), PALB2 (8/39; 20.5%), CHEK2 (10/39; 25.6%), and PMS2 (5/39; 12.8%). Of the 34 PVs with known race/ethnicity, 47% were detected among non-White patients. Overall, 354/1,943 (18.2%) of patients met NCCN guidelines for HBOC gene testing and only 15/39 (38.5%) patients with an autosomal dominant clinically actionable PV met guidelines.

CONCLUSION

This population health approach extended the reach of genetic cancer risk assessment in a diverse population and highlighted the limits of a guideline-based approach. This may help address inequity in access to risk-appropriate screening and cancer prevention.

Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer: from Detection to Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Update on current racial disparities in the detection and treatment of breast cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death among Black and Hispanic women. Mammography rates among Black and Hispanic women have surpassed those among White women, with studies now advocating for earlier initiation of breast cancer screening in Black women. Black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian and Alaskan Native women continue to experience delays in diagnosis and time to treatment. Further, racial discrepancies in receipt of guideline-concordant care, access to genetic testing and surgical reconstruction persist. Disparities in the initiation, completion, toxicity, and efficacy of chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted drug therapy remain for racially marginalized women. Efforts to evaluate the impact of race and ethnicity across the breast cancer spectrum are increasing, but knowledge gaps remain and further research is necessary to reduce the disparity gap.

Protocol to evaluate sequential electronic health record-based strategies to increase genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk across diverse patient populations in gynecology practices

BACKGROUND

Germline genetic testing is recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for individuals including, but not limited to, those with a personal history of ovarian cancer, young-onset (< 50 years) breast cancer, and a family history of ovarian cancer or male breast cancer. Genetic testing is underused overall, and rates are consistently lower among Black and Hispanic populations. Behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies, or nudges, directed towards patients and clinicians may increase the use of this evidence-based clinical practice.

METHODS

Patients meeting eligibility for germline genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer will be identified using electronic phenotyping algorithms. A pragmatic cohort study will test three sequential strategies to promote genetic testing, two directed at patients and one directed at clinicians, deployed in the electronic health record (EHR) for patients in OB-GYN clinics across a diverse academic medical center. We will use rapid cycle approaches informed by relevant clinician and patient experiences, health equity, and behavioral economics to optimize and de-risk our strategies and methods before trial initiation. Step 1 will send patients messages through the health system patient portal. For non-responders, step 2 will reach out to patients via text message. For non-responders, Step 3 will contact patients' clinicians using a novel "pend and send" tool in the EHR. The primary implementation outcome is engagement with germline genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition, defined as a scheduled genetic counseling appointment. Patient data collected through the EHR (e.g., race/ethnicity, geocoded address) will be examined as moderators of the impact of the strategies.

DISCUSSION

This study will be one of the first to sequentially examine the effects of patient- and clinician-directed strategies informed by behavioral economics on engagement with breast and ovarian cancer genetic testing. The pragmatic and sequential design will facilitate a large and diverse patient sample, allow for the assessment of incremental gains from different implementation strategies, and permit the assessment of moderators of strategy effectiveness. The findings may help determine the impact of low-cost, highly transportable implementation strategies that can be integrated into healthcare systems to improve the use of genomic medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT05721326. Registered February 10, 2023. https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/study/NCT05721326.

Oncologic anthropology: Global variations in breast cancer risk, biology, and outcome

The global breast cancer burden is growing. Of 19.3 million new cancers diagnosed in 2020, 2.26 million were breast, surpassing lung as the most commonly diagnosed worldwide. Breast cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer deaths worldwide, and the leading cause of death in females. Incidence and mortality rates are projected to rise disproportionately in low and middle-income countries, a consequence of socioeconomic factors and differences in tumor biology related to genetic ancestry.

Germline Genetic Testing Among Women ≤ 45 Years of Age with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Versus Invasive Breast Cancer in a Large Integrated Health Care System

BACKGROUND

We compared the results of hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among patients ≤ 45 years of age diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) versus invasive breast cancer (IBC) in a large integrated health care system.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of hereditary cancer gene testing among women ≤ 45 years of age diagnosed with DCIS or IBC at Kaiser Permanente Northern California between September 2019 and August 2020 was performed. During the study period, institutional guidelines recommended the above population be referred to genetic counselors for pretesting counseling and testing.

RESULTS

A total of 61 DCIS and 485 IBC patients were identified. Genetic counselors met with 95% of both groups, and 86.4% of DCIS patients and 93.9% of IBC patients (p = 0.0339) underwent gene testing. Testing differed by race/ethnicity (p = 0.0372). Among those tested, 11.76% (n = 6) of DCIS patients and 16.71% (n = 72) of IBC patients had a pathogenic variant (PV) or likely pathogenic variant (LPV) based on the 36-gene panel (p = 0.3650). Similar trends were seen in 13 breast cancer (BC)-related genes (p = 0.0553). Family history of cancer was significantly associated with both BC-related and non-BC-related PVs in IBC, but not DCIS.

CONCLUSION

In our study, 95% of patients were seen by a genetic counselor when age was used as an eligibility criterion for referral. While larger studies are needed to further compare the prevalence of PVs/LPVs among DCIS and IBC patients, our data suggest that even in younger patients, the prevalence of PVs/LPVs in BC-related genes is lower in DCIS patients.

Chatbot Artificial Intelligence for Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Most individuals with a hereditary cancer syndrome are unaware of their genetic status to underutilization of hereditary cancer risk assessment. Chatbots, or programs that use artificial intelligence to simulate conversation, have emerged as a promising tool in health care and, more recently, as a potential tool for genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. Here, we evaluated the existing literature on the use of chatbots in genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using key electronic databases to identify studies which use chatbots for genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. Eligible studies were further subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Seven studies met inclusion criteria, evaluating five distinct chatbots. Three studies evaluated a chatbot that could perform genetic cancer risk assessment, one study evaluated a chatbot that offered patient counseling, and three studies included both functions. The pooled estimated completion rate for the genetic cancer risk assessment was 36.7% (95% CI, 14.8 to 65.9). Two studies included comprehensive patient characteristics, and none involved a comparison group. Chatbots varied as to the involvement of a health care provider in the process of risk assessment and counseling.

CONCLUSION

Chatbots have been used to streamline genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling and hold promise for reducing barriers to genetic services. Data regarding user and nonuser characteristics are lacking, as are data regarding comparative effectiveness to usual care. Future research may consider the impact of chatbots on equitable access to genetic services.

Inborn Errors of Immunity in Hidradenitis Suppurativa Pathogenesis and Disease Burden

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), also known as Verneuil's disease and acne inversa, is a prevalent, debilitating, and understudied inflammatory skin disease. It is marked by repeated bouts of pathological inflammation causing pain, hyperplasia, aberrant healing, and fibrosis. HS is difficult to manage and has many unmet medical needs. There is clinical and pharmacological evidence for extensive etiological heterogeneity with HS, suggesting that this clinical diagnosis is capturing a spectrum of disease entities. Human genetic studies provide robust insight into disease pathogenesis. They also can be used to resolve etiological heterogeneity and to identify drug targets. However, HS has not been extensively investigated with well-powered genetic studies. Here, we review what is known about its genetic architecture. We identify overlap in molecular, cellular, and clinical features between HS and inborn errors of immunity (IEI). This evidence indicates that HS may be an underrecognized component of IEI and suggests that undiagnosed IEI are present in HS cohorts. Inborn errors of immunity represent a salient opportunity for rapidly resolving the immunological landscape of HS pathogenesis, for prioritizing drug repurposing studies, and for improving the clinical management of HS.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Genomic Healthcare Utilization, Patient Activation, and Intrafamilial Communication of Risk among Females Tested for BRCA Variants: A Mixed Methods Study

This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of genomic healthcare utilization, patient activation, and intrafamilial risk communication among racially and ethnically diverse individuals tested for BRCA variants. We employed an explanatory, sequential, mixed-methods study guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior. Participants completed an online survey, including sociodemographic, medical history, and several validated instruments. A subset of participants participated in in-depth, semi-structured interviews. A total of 242 women were included in the quantitative analyses. The majority of survey participants identified as non-Hispanic white (NHW) (n = 197, 81.4%) while 45/242 (18.5%) identified as black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). The NHW participants were more likely to communicate genetic test results with healthcare providers, family, and friends than BIPOC participants (p < 0.05). BIPOC participants had lower satisfaction with testing decisions and significantly higher ratings of personal discrimination, fatalism, resilience, uncertainty, and lower patient activation scores (p < 0.05). Participants with higher education, greater satisfaction with testing decisions, and lower resilience are more likely to communicate BRCA test results with family members through the mediating effect of patient activation. Bridging disparities to ensure that genomic healthcare benefits all people may demand theory-driven, multi-level interventions targeting the individual, interpersonal, and healthcare system levels.

Disparity in Breast Cancer Care: Current State of Access to Screening, Genetic Testing, Oncofertility, and Reconstruction

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women, accounting for an estimated 30% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2022. Advances in breast cancer treatment have reduced the mortality rate over the past 25 years by up to 34% but not all groups have benefitted equally from these improvements. These disparities span the continuum of care from screening to the receipt of guideline-concordant therapy and survivorship. At the 2022 American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress, a panel session was dedicated to educating and discussing methods of addressing these disparities in a coordinated manner. While there are multilevel solutions to address these disparities, this article focuses on screening, genetic testing, reconstruction, and oncofertility.

Urban-Rural and Socioeconomic Differences in Patient Knowledge and Perceptions of Genomic Tumor Testing

PURPOSE

Social determinants of health, such as rurality, income, and education, may widen health disparities by driving variation in patients' knowledge and perceptions of medical interventions. This effect may be greatest for medical technologies that are hard to understand and less accessible. This study explored whether knowledge and perceptions (expectations and attitudes) of patients with cancer toward large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT), an emerging cancer technology, vary by patient rurality independent of other socioeconomic characteristics (education and income).

METHODS

Patients with cancer enrolled in a large precision oncology initiative completed surveys measuring rurality, sociodemographic characteristics, and knowledge and perceptions of GTT. We used multivariable linear models to examine differences in GTT knowledge, expectations, and attitudes by patient rurality, education, and income level. Models controlled for age, sex and clinical cancer stage and type.

RESULTS

Rural patients had significantly lower knowledge of GTT than urban patients using bivariate models (P = .025). However, this association disappeared when adjusting for education and income level: patients with lower educational attainment and lower income had lower knowledge and higher expectations (P ≤ .002), whereas patients with higher income had more positive attitudes (P = .005). Urban patients had higher expectations of GTT compared with patients living in large rural areas (P = .011). Rurality was not associated with attitudes.

CONCLUSION

Patients' education and income level are associated with knowledge, expectations, and attitudes toward GTT, whereas rurality is associated with patient expectations. These findings suggest that efforts to promote adoption of GTT should focus on improving knowledge and awareness among individuals with low education and income. These differences may lead to downstream disparities in GTT utilization, which should be explored in future research.

Outcomes of Universal Point-of-Care Genetic Testing in Diverse Patients With Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend all patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergo germline genetic testing (GT). Rates of recommendation and completion of GT among diverse patients with PDAC are not known. The aim was to determine rates of recommendation and completion of point-of-care GT in diverse patients with PDAC.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients with PDAC seen at an academic center between April 2019 and December 2020 was performed. Recommendation, completion and results of point-of-care GT, and demographic and clinical factors were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses of GT were performed using the chi-square test and logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 579 patients with PDAC were included. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years; 52% were male; 63% were non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients, and 20% were African American (AA) patients. GT was performed in 216 (37%) patients. Of those tested, 47 (22%) had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant identified of which 25 (12%) were in PDAC-associated genes. On multivariate analysis, age, NHW race, personal and family cancer history, medical oncology visit, and number of visits were independent predictors of GT completion. AA patients had significantly lower rates of recommendation and completion of GT compared with NHW patients.

CONCLUSION

Point-of-care GT in patients with PDAC is unacceptably low, especially among AA patients. Testing disparity might be due to lack of provider recommendation more than patient uptake. Lack of testing leads to missed opportunities for potential targeted therapies, improved outcomes, and identification of at-risk family members who could potentially benefit from surveillance.

Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests in Preventive Oncology: Emerging Needs and Opportunities

Cancer predictive or diagnostic assays, offered as Laboratory-Developed Tests (LDTs), have been subject to regulatory authority and enforcement discretion by the US Food and Drug Administration. Many LDTs enter the market without US Food and Drug Administration or any regulatory review. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments focuses on analytic performance, but has limited oversight of the quality or utility of LDTs, including whether patients have been harmed as a result of their use. Increasingly, LDTs for cancer risk or early detection have been marketed directly to consumers, with many LDT developers depicting these tests, requested by patients but ordered by personal or company-associated physicians, as procedures falling under the practice of medicine. This patchwork of regulation and enforcement uncertainty regarding LDTs and public concerns about accuracy of tests given emergency authorization during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT (in vitro clinical test) Development Act of 2021. This pending federal legislation represents an opportunity to harmonize regulatory policies and address growing concerns over quality, utility, and safety of LDTs for cancer genomics, including tests marketed directly to consumers. We review here questions regarding the potential benefits and harms of some cancer-related LDTs for cancer risk and presymptomatic molecular diagnosis, increasingly marketed to oncologists or directly to the worried well. We offer specific proposals to strengthen oversight of the accuracy and clinical utility of cancer genetic testing to ensure public safety.

Disparities in cancer genetics care by race/ethnicity among pan-cancer patients with pathogenic germline variants

BACKGROUND

Germline risk assessment is increasing as part of cancer care; however, disparities in subsequent genetic counseling are unknown.

METHODS

Pan-cancer patients were prospectively consented to tumor-normal sequencing via custom next generation sequencing panel (Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets) inclusive of germline analysis of ≥76 genes from January 2015 through December 2019 (97.5% research nonbillable) with protocol for genetics referral. Rates of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PVs) and downstream counseling were compared across ancestry groups (mutually exclusive groups based on self-reported race/ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jewish [AJ] heritage) using nonparametric tests and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among 15,775 patients (59.6%, non-Hispanic [NH]-White; 15.7%, AJ; 20.5%, non-White [6.9%, Asian; 6.8%, Black/African American (AA); 6.7%, Hispanic; 0.1%, Other], and 4.2%, unknown), 2663 (17%) had a PV. Non-White patients had a lower PV rate (n = 433, 13.4%) compared to NH-Whites (n = 1451, 15.4%) and AJ patients (n = 683, 27.6%), p < .01, with differences in mostly moderate and low/recessive/uncertain penetrance variants. Among 2239 patients with new PV, 1652 (73.8%) completed recommended genetic counseling. Non-White patients had lower rates of genetic counseling (67.7%) than NH-White (73.7%) and AJ patients (78.8%), p < .01, with lower rates occurring in Black/AA (63%) compared to NH-White patients, even after adjustment for confounders (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.97; p = .036). Non-White, particularly Black/AA and Asian, probands had a trend toward lower rates and numbers of at-risk family members being seen for counseling/genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite minimizing barriers to genetic testing, non-White patients were less likely to receive recommended cancer genetics follow-up, with potential implications for oncologic care, cancer risk reduction, and at-risk family members.

LAY SUMMARY

Genetic testing is becoming an important part of cancer care, and we wanted to see if genetics care was different between individuals of different backgrounds. We studied 15,775 diverse patients with cancer who had genetic testing using a test called MSK-IMPACT that was covered by research funding. Clinically important genetic findings were high in all groups. However, Black patients were less likely to get recommended counseling compared to White patients. Even after removing many roadblocks, non-White and especially Black patients were less likely to get recommended genetics care, which may affect their cancer treatments and families.

Interest in genetic testing and risk-reducing behavioral changes: results from a community health assessment in New York City

Risk-based genetic tests are often used to determine cancer risk, when to initiate screening, and frequency of screening, but rely on interest in genetic testing. We examined overall interest in genetic testing for cancer risk assessment and willingness to change behavior, and whether these are affected by demographic or socioeconomic factors.We conducted a community needs health survey in 2019 among primary care and cancer patients, family members and community members in New York City. We used univariable analysis and relative risk regression to examine interest in genetic cancer risk testing and willingness to modify lifestyle behaviors in response to an informative genetic test.Of the 1225 participants, 74.0% (n = 906) expressed interest in having a genetic test to assess cancer risk. Interest in genetic testing was high across all demographic and socioeconomic groups; reported interest in genetic testing by group ranged from 65.0 (participants aged 65 years and older) to 83.6% (participants below federal poverty level). Among the 906 participants that reported interest in genetic testing, 79.6% were willing to change eating habits, 66.5% to change exercise habits, and 49.5% to lose weight in response to an informative genetic test result.Our study reveals that interest in genetic testing for cancer risk is high among patients and community members and is high across demographic and socioeconomic groups, as is the reported willingness to change behavior. Based on these results, we recommend that population-based genetic testing may result in greater reduction cancer risk, particularly among minoritized groups.

An Idealized Clinicogenomic Registry to Engage Underrepresented Populations Using Innovative Technology

Current best practices in tumor registries provide a glimpse into a limited time frame over the natural history of disease, usually a narrow window around diagnosis and biopsy. This creates challenges meeting public health and healthcare reimbursement policies that increasingly require robust documentation of long-term clinical trajectories, quality of life, and health economics outcomes. These challenges are amplified for underrepresented minority (URM) and other disadvantaged populations, who tend to view the institution of clinical research with skepticism. Participation gaps leave such populations underrepresented in clinical research and, importantly, in policy decisions about treatment choices and reimbursement, thus further augmenting health, social, and economic disparities. Cloud computing, mobile computing, digital ledgers, tokenization, and artificial intelligence technologies are powerful tools that promise to enhance longitudinal patient engagement across the natural history of disease. These tools also promise to enhance engagement by giving participants agency over their data and addressing a major impediment to research participation. This will only occur if these tools are available for use with all patients. Distributed ledger technologies (specifically blockchain) converge these tools and offer a significant element of trust that can be used to engage URM populations more substantively in clinical research. This is a crucial step toward linking composite cohorts for training and optimization of the artificial intelligence tools for enhancing public health in the future. The parameters of an idealized clinical genomic registry are presented.

Predicting breast cancer risk in a racially diverse, community-based sample of potentially high-risk women

BACKGROUND

Identifying women with high risk of breast cancer is necessary to study high-risk experiences and deliver risk-management care. Risk prediction models estimate individuals' lifetime risk but have rarely been applied in community-based settings among women not yet receiving specialized care. Therefore, we aimed: (1) to apply three breast cancer risk prediction models (i.e., Gail, Claus, and IBIS) to a racially diverse, community-based sample of women, and (2) to assess risk prediction estimates using survey data.

METHODS

An online survey was administered to women who were determined by a screening instrument to have potentially high risk for breast cancer. Risk prediction models were applied using their self-reported family and medical history information. Inclusion in the high-risk subsample required ≥20% lifetime risk per ≥1 model. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the proportions of women identified as high risk by each model.

RESULTS

N = 1053 women were initially eligible and completed the survey. All women, except one, self-reported the information necessary to run at least one model; 90% had sufficient information for >1 model. The high-risk subsample included 717 women, of which 75% were identified by one model only; 96% were identified by IBIS, 3% by Claus, <1% by Gail. In the high-risk subsample, 20% were identified by two models and 3% by all three models.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing breast cancer risk using self-reported data in a community-based sample was feasible. Different models identify substantially different groups of women who may be at high risk for breast cancer; use of multiple models may be beneficial for research and clinical care.

Healthcare Predictors of Information Dissemination About Genetic Risks

Objectives

Despite the benefits of genetic counseling and testing (GCT), utilization is particularly low among African American (AA) women who exhibit breast cancer features that are common in BRCA-associated cancer. Underutilization is especially problematic for AA women who are more likely to die from breast cancer than women from any other race or ethnicity. Due to medical mistrust, fear, and stigma that can be associated with genetic services among racial/ethnic minorities, reliance on trusted social networks may be an impactful strategy to increase dissemination of knowledge about hereditary cancer risk. Informed by the social cognitive theory, the purpose of this study is to determine: 1) which AA patients diagnosed with breast cancer and with identified hereditary risk are sharing information about hereditary risk with their networks; 2) the nature of the information dissemination; and 3) if personal GCT experiences is associated with dissemination of information about hereditary risk.

Methods

Among consented participants (n = 100) that completed an interview administered using a 202-item questionnaire consisting of open- and closed-ended questions, 62 patients were identified to be at higher risk for breast cancer. Descriptive statistics, bivariable chi-square, Pearson’s exact tests, and regression analyses were conducted to examine differences in characteristics between high-risk participants who disseminated hereditary risk information and participants who did not.

Results

Among high-risk participants, 25 (40%) indicated they had disseminated information about hereditary risk to at least one member in their family/friend network and 37 (60%) had not. Receipt of both provider recommendations and receipt of GCT services was associated with greater odds of disseminating information about hereditary risk with networks, OR = 4.53, 95%CI [1.33, 15.50], p = .02.

Conclusion

Interventions that increase self-efficacy gained through additional personalized knowledge and experience gained through provider recommendations and by undergoing GCT may facilitate information dissemination among social/familial networks.

Primary Care Providers' Use of Genetic Services in the Southeast United States: Barriers, Facilitators, and Strategies

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Collectively, genetic diseases are not that rare, and with increasing availability of genetics-informed healthcare management, primary care providers (PCPs) are more often asked to screen for or provide genetic services. Previous studies have identified barriers that impact PCPs' ability to provide genetic services, including limited knowledge, training, and time/resources. This study set out to identify specific barriers limiting genetics service provision by PCPs within the Southeastern Regional Genetics Network (SERN) and resources that would help eliminate those barriers.

METHODS

PCPs were recruited through provider networks and invited to participate in semi-structured interviews, conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were independently coded by 2 coders using MAXQDA software. Thematic analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Eleven interviews were conducted. Three predominant themes emerged from the data regarding factors impacting use of genetic services: system-wide factors, provider-specific factors, and patient factors. System-wide barriers included a lack of genetics providers and logistic challenges, which led to some PCPs coordinating referrals with other specialists or independently managing patients. Regarding provider-specific barriers, PCPs reported lack of genetics knowledge making referrals challenging. When possible, many PCPs contacted genetics providers for assistance. When not possible, some PCPs reached out to other colleagues or specialists for guidance. Patient-specific barriers included concerns or lack of information regarding genetics and unmet social needs. Many PCPs provided additional education regarding genetics appointments or testing benefits to their patients. Assistance from genetic counselors, electronic medical record systems that support referral to genetics, prior experience referring to genetics, established communication channels with genetics professionals, and highly motivated patients all facilitated improved collaboration with genetic services. PCPs provided suggestions for future resources to support interactions with genetics, including clear referral guidelines, increased access to genetics providers, improved test ordering processes, increased access to genetic education, and communication systems.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs face barriers at 3 different levels when engaging with genetic services: systems, providers, and patients. This study identified strategies that PCPs use to address these barriers, which are dependent on individual resources and practice settings. These strategies demonstrate resourcefulness in working to incorporate genetics into clinics operating at maximum capacity. By targeting barriers that uniquely impact providers, systems, and patients, as well as building upon strategies that PCPs are already using, medical providers can support PCPs to help with the provision of genetic services.

Disparities in Genetic Testing for Heritable Solid-Tumor Malignancies

Genetic testing offers providers a potentially life saving tool for identifying and intervening in high-risk individuals. However, disparities in receipt of genetic testing have been consistently demonstrated and undoubtedly have significant implications for the populations not receiving the standard of care. If correctly used, there is the potential for genetic testing to play a role in decreasing health disparities among individuals of different races and ethnicities. However, if genetic testing continues to revolutionize cancer care while being disproportionately distributed, it also has the potential to widen the existing mortality gap between various racial and ethnic populations.