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

Implementation of a Population-Based Cancer Family History Screening Program for Lynch Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

Lynch syndrome increases risks for colorectal and other cancers. Though published Lynch syndrome cancer risk-management guidelines are effective for risk-reduction, the condition remains under-recognized. The Cancer Genetics Program at an academic medical center implemented a population-based cancer family history screening program, Detecting Unaffected Individuals with Lynch syndrome, to aid in identification of individuals with Lynch syndrome.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, simple cancer family history screening questionnaires were used to identify those at risk for Lynch syndrome. Program navigators triaged and educated those who screened positive about hereditary cancer, and genetic counseling and testing services, offering genetic counseling if eligible. Genetic counseling was provided primarily via telephone. Genetic counselors performed hereditary cancer risk assessment and offered genetic testing via hereditary cancer panels to those eligible. Remote service delivery models via telephone genetic counseling and at-home saliva testing were used to increase access to medical genetics services.

RESULTS

This program screened 212,827 individuals, over half of whom were considered underserved, and identified 133 clinically actionable genetic variants associated with hereditary cancer. Of these, 47 (35%) were associated with Lynch syndrome while notably, 70 (53%) were not associated with hereditary colorectal cancer. Of 3,344 patients offered genetic counseling after initial triage, 2,441 (73%) elected to schedule the appointment and 1,775 individuals (73%) completed genetic counseling. Among underserved patients, telephone genetic counseling completion rates were significantly higher than in-person appointment completion rates (P < .05). While remote service delivery improved appointment completion rates, challenges with genetic test completion using at-home saliva sample collection kits were observed, with 242 of 1592 individuals (15%) not completing testing.

CONCLUSION

Population-based cancer family history screening and navigation can help identify individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes across diverse patient populations, but logistics of certain downstream service delivery models can impact outcomes.

Applying citizen science to engage families affected by ovarian cancer in developing genetic service outreach strategies

Citizen science (CS) approaches involving non-professional researchers (citizens) as research collaborators has been used infrequently in health promotion generally and specifically, in cancer prevention. Standardized CS approaches may be especially useful for developing communication interventions to encourage families to consider cancer genetic services. We engaged survivors of ovarian cancer and their close relatives as CS collaborators to collect and help interpret data to inform content for a website, printed invitation materials, and short-message reminders. We applied an implementation quality framework, and posed four research questions regarding the feasibility of CS: recruitment, data collection, data quality and evaluation of the experience. CS members were recruited through three networks: clinical sites, local and national cancer support organizations, and online ovarian cancer patient support groups. The professional research team operationalized theory-aligned CS tasks, five data collection options, question banks/scripts for creating surveys, structured interviews, online training and ongoing support from research coaches. 14 CS members agreed to the 12-week and 20-hour commitment for an honorarium. CS members opted to do both qualitative and quantitative assessments. CS members collected 261 surveys and 39 structured interviews. The largest number of surveys were collected for Task 1 (n = 102) to assess survivors' reactions to different possible options for motivating survivors to visit a study website; 77% of this data were complete (i.e., no missing values). Data collected for tasks 2, 3, 4, and 5 (e.g., assessment of survivors' and relatives' respective communication preferences) ranged from 10 to 58 surveys (80% to 84% completeness). All data were collected within the specified time frame. CSs reported 17 hours of work on average and regarded the experience positively. Our experience suggests that CS engagement is feasible, can yield comprehensive quantitative and qualitative data, and is achievable in a relatively a short timeline.

Following NCCN guidelines within one hospital system in the United States: Comparison between cancer centers and genetic counselor utilization

Genetic testing is an instrumental tool used to determine whether an individual has a predisposition to certain cancers. Knowing of a hereditary cancer predisposition may allow a patient and their family to consider high-risk screening or risk-reducing options. Genetic counselors work with physicians to identify patients at increased risk for genetic testing using available guidelines such as those provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Information within one hospital system's cancer registry was used to identify individuals who qualify for genetic testing. This includes patients with a history of cancer of the breast (diagnosis ≤45, triple negative (TN) ≤60, and male), ovaries, colon (diagnosis ≤50), or uterus (diagnosis ≤50). Within this hospital system's registry, there are six cancer centers. Data were collected from cancer centers that utilized genetic counselors (GCs), and cancer centers that did not (non-GC) to determine whether there was a difference in genetic testing rates between GC and non-GC cancer centers. An analysis of 695 patients demonstrated a significantly higher proportion of eligible patients undergoing genetic testing at the GC cancer centers than at the non-GC cancer centers (91.6% versus 68.7%, p < .001). Further analysis of specific cancers showed a significantly higher uptake of genetic testing for eligible patients with colon cancer (90.8% versus 50%, p < .001), breast cancer ≤45 (99.5% versus 86%, p < .001), and ovarian cancer (91.3% versus 62.8%, p < .001) at the GC cancer centers than at the non-GC cancer centers. There was no significant difference in the proportion of testing of TN breast cancer ≤60 or uterine cancer ≤50 between cancer centers. These data suggest that having a GC working within a cancer center increases the ability to identify and offer testing to patients who meet NCCN genetic testing criteria based on their cancer type.

Adapting genetic counseling operations amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions to the delivery of genetic counseling services and clinical operations. Understanding how these pivots in practice affected patient care across both a county hospital system and academic medical center can help provide models of clinical operations for other genetic counselors. Programmatic data were analyzed between March 18, 2020 and September 18, 2020, including visit completion rates and genetic testing completion outcomes for genetic counseling services during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to analyzing the effects on patient care, we provide commentary on technological adaptations that aided our operations, billing practices, onboarding and engaging new and existing staff, and coordination of education and outreach opportunities. Through this work, we highlight barriers encountered and successful adaptations that will influence future clinical practices and may guide other providers in the development of strategies to meet their clinical and operational needs.

Utility and Diversity: Challenges for Genomic Medicine

Genomic information is poised to play an increasing role in clinical care, extending beyond highly penetrant genetic conditions to less penetrant genotypes and common disorders. But with this shift, the question of clinical utility becomes a major challenge. A collaborative effort is necessary to determine the information needed to evaluate different uses of genomic information and then acquire that information. Another challenge must also be addressed if that process is to provide equitable benefits: the lack of diversity of genomic data. Current genomic knowledge comes primarily from populations of European descent, which poses the risk that most of the human population will be shortchanged when health benefits of genomics emerge. These two challenges have defined my career as a geneticist and have taught me that solutions must start with dialogue across disciplinary and social divides.

Implementing Cancer Genomics in State Health Agencies: Mapping Activities to an Implementation Science Outcome Framework

OBJECTIVE

To show how state health agencies can plan and evaluate activities to strengthen the evidence base for public health genomics, we mapped state cancer genomics activities to the Doyle et al. [Genet Med. 2018;20(9):995-1003] implementation science outcome framework.

METHODS

We identified state health agency activities addressing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome by reviewing project narratives from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cancer Genomics Program funding recipients, leading discussions with state health agencies, and conducting an environmental scan.

RESULTS

State health agencies' cancer genomics activities included developing or adding to state surveillance systems, developing educational materials, bidirectional reporting, promoting health plan policy change, training providers, and promoting recommendations and standards. To address health disparities, programs have tracked group differences, developed culturally appropriate educational materials, and promoted access to services for underserved populations.

CONCLUSION

State health agencies can use the Doyle et al. [Genet Med. 2018;20(9):995-1003] performance objectives and outcome measures to evaluate proposed and ongoing activities. By demonstrating whether activities result in improved outcomes, state health agencies can build the evidence for the implementation of cancer genomics activities.

Leveraging Implementation Science to Address Health Disparities in Genomic Medicine: Examples from the Field

The integration of genomic data into screening, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment for clinical and public health practices has been slow and challenging. Implementation science can be applied in tackling the barriers and challenges as well as exploring opportunities and best practices for integrating genomic data into routine clinical and public health practice.In this article, we define the state of disparities in genomic medicine and focus predominantly on late-stage research findings. We use case studies from genetic testing for cardiovascular diseases (familial hypercholesterolemia) and cancer (Lynch syndrome and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome) in high-risk populations to consider current disparities and related barriers in turning genomic advances into population health impact to advance health equity. Finally, we address how implementation science can address these translational barriers and we discuss the strategic importance of collaborative multi-stakeholder approaches that engage public health agencies, professional societies, academic health and research centers, community clinics, and patients and their families to work collectively to improve population health and reduce or eliminate health inequities.