Effectiveness of interventions to identify and manage patients with familial cancer risk in primary care: a systematic review

Proactive familial cancer risk assessment: a service development study in UK primary care

BACKGROUND

Family history assessment can identify individuals above population-risk for cancer to enable targeted Screening, Prevention, and Early Detection (SPED). Family History Questionnaire Service (FHQS) is a resource-efficient patient-facing online tool to facilitate this. In the UK, cancer risk assessment is usually only offered to concerned individuals proactively self-presenting to their GP, leading to inequity in accessing SPED in the community.

AIM

To improve access to community cancer genetic risk assessment and explore barriers to uptake.

DESIGN & SETTING

Service development project of a digital pathway using the FHQS for cancer risk assessment across four general practices within the clinical remit of the South West Thames Centre for Genomics (SWTCG).

METHOD

3100 individuals aged 38-50 years were invited to complete the FHQS through either text message or email. A random selection of 100 non-responders were contacted to determine barriers to uptake.

RESULTS

In total, n = 304/3100 (10%) registered for the FHQS. Responders were more likely to be British (63% vs 47%, P<0.001), speak English as their main language (92% vs 76%, P<0.001), and not require an interpreter (99.6% vs 94.9%, P = 0.001). Of 304 responders, 158 (52%) were automatically identified as at population-risk without full family history review. Of the remaining 146 responders, 52 (36%) required either additional screening referral (n = 23), genetics referral (n = 15), and/or advice to relatives (n = 18). Of 100 non-responders contacted, eight had incorrect contact details and 53 were contactable. Reasons for not responding included not receiving invitation details (n = 26), losing the invitation (n = 5), or forgetting (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

The FHQS can be used as part of a low-resource primary care pathway to identify individuals in the community above population-risk for cancer requiring action. This study highlighted barriers to uptake requiring consideration to maximise impact and minimise inequity.

Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening

In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer be offered risk-reducing medication and enhanced breast screening/surveillance. In June 2022, NICE withdrew a statement recommending assessment of risk in primary care only when women present with concerns. This shift to the proactive assessment of risk substantially changes the role of primary care, in effect paving the way for a primary care-based screening programme to identify those at moderate or high risk of breast cancer. In this article, we review the literature surrounding proactive breast cancer risk assessment within primary care against the consolidated framework for screening. We find that risk assessment for women under 50 years currently satisfies many of the standard principles for screening. Most notably, there are large numbers of women at moderate or high risk currently unidentified, risk models exist that can identify those women with reasonable accuracy, and management options offer the opportunity to reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality in that group. However, there remain a number of uncertainties and research gaps, particularly around the programme/system requirements, that need to be addressed before these benefits can be realised.

Association of Disparities in Family History and Family Cancer History in the Electronic Health Record With Sex, Race, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, and Language Preference in 2 Large US Health Care Systems

IMPORTANCE

Clinical decision support (CDS) algorithms are increasingly being implemented in health care systems to identify patients for specialty care. However, systematic differences in missingness of electronic health record (EHR) data may lead to disparities in identification by CDS algorithms.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the availability and comprehensiveness of cancer family history information (FHI) in patients' EHRs by sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and language preference in 2 large health care systems in 2021.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective EHR quality improvement study used EHR data from 2 health care systems: University of Utah Health (UHealth) and NYU Langone Health (NYULH). Participants included patients aged 25 to 60 years who had a primary care appointment in the previous 3 years. Data were collected or abstracted from the EHR from December 10, 2020, to October 31, 2021, and analyzed from June 15 to October 31, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Prior collection of cancer FHI in primary care settings.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Availability was defined as having any FHI and any cancer FHI in the EHR and was examined at the patient level. Comprehensiveness was defined as whether a cancer family history observation in the EHR specified the type of cancer diagnosed in a family member, the relationship of the family member to the patient, and the age at onset for the family member and was examined at the observation level.

RESULTS

Among 144 484 patients in the UHealth system, 53.6% were women; 74.4% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino and 67.6% were White; and 83.0% had an English language preference. Among 377 621 patients in the NYULH system, 55.3% were women; 63.2% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino, and 55.3% were White; and 89.9% had an English language preference. Patients from historically medically undeserved groups-specifically, Black vs White patients (UHealth: 17.3% [95% CI, 16.1%-18.6%] vs 42.8% [95% CI, 42.5%-43.1%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.0%-24.8%] vs 33.8% [95% CI, 33.6%-34.0%]), Hispanic or Latino vs non-Hispanic or non-Latino patients (UHealth: 27.2% [95% CI, 26.5%-27.8%] vs 40.2% [95% CI, 39.9%-40.5%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.1%-24.7%] vs 31.6% [95% CI, 31.4%-31.8%]), Spanish-speaking vs English-speaking patients (UHealth: 18.4% [95% CI, 17.2%-19.1%] vs 40.0% [95% CI, 39.7%-40.3%]; NYULH: 15.1% [95% CI, 14.6%-15.6%] vs 31.1% [95% CI, 30.9%-31.2%), and men vs women (UHealth: 30.8% [95% CI, 30.4%-31.2%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 42.6%-43.3%]; NYULH: 23.1% [95% CI, 22.9%-23.3%] vs 34.9% [95% CI, 34.7%-35.1%])-had significantly lower availability and comprehensiveness of cancer FHI (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that systematic differences in the availability and comprehensiveness of FHI in the EHR may introduce informative presence bias as inputs to CDS algorithms. The observed differences may also exacerbate disparities for medically underserved groups. System-, clinician-, and patient-level efforts are needed to improve the collection of FHI.

Familial Risks and Proportions Describing Population Landscape of Familial Cancer

Simple Summary

Familial cancer can be defined through the occurrence of the same cancer in two or more family members. Hereditary cancer is a narrower definition of high-risk familial aggregation through identified predisposing genes. The absence of correlation between spouses for risk of most cancers, particularly those not related to tobacco smoking or solar exposure, suggests that familial cancers are mainly due to genetic causes. The aim of the present study was to define the frequency and increased risk for familial cancer. Data on 31 of the most common cancers were obtained from the Swedish Family-Cancer Database and familial relative risks (SIRs) were estimated between persons with or without family history of the same cancer in first-degree relatives. Practically all cancers showed a familial risk, with an SIR most commonly around two, or a doubling of the risk because of family history.

Abstract

Background: Familial cancer can be defined through the occurrence of the same cancer in two or more family members. We describe a nationwide landscape of familial cancer, including its frequency and the risk that it conveys, by using the largest family database in the world with complete family structures and medically confirmed cancers. Patients/methods: We employed standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) to estimate familial risks for concordant cancer among first-degree relatives using the Swedish Cancer Registry from years 1958 through 2016. Results: Cancer risks in a 20–84 year old population conferred by affected parents or siblings were about two-fold compared to the risk for individuals with unaffected relatives. For small intestinal, testicular, thyroid and bone cancers and Hodgkin disease, risks were higher, five-to-eight-fold. Novel familial associations included adult bone, lip, pharyngeal, and connective tissue cancers. Familial cancers were found in 13.2% of families with cancer; for prostate cancer, the proportion was 26.4%. High-risk families accounted for 6.6% of all cancer families. Discussion/Conclusion: High-risk family history should be exceedingly considered for management, including targeted genetic testing. For the major proportion of familial clustering, where genetic testing may not be feasible, medical and behavioral intervention should be indicated for the patient and their family members, including screening recommendations and avoidance of carcinogenic exposure.

Improving primary care identification of familial breast cancer risk using proactive invitation and decision support

Family history of breast cancer is a key risk factor, accounting for up to 10% of cancers. We evaluated the proactive assessment of familial breast cancer (FBC) risk in primary care. Eligible women (30 to 60 years) were recruited from eight English general practices. Practices were trained on FBC risk assessment. In four randomly-assigned practices, women were invited to complete a validated, postal family history questionnaire, which practice staff inputted into decision support software to determine cancer risk. Those with increased risk were offered specialist referral. Usual care was observed in the other four practices. In intervention practices, 1127/7012 women (16.1%) returned family history questionnaires, comprising 1105 (98%) self-reported white ethnicity and 446 (39.6%) educated to University undergraduate or equivalent qualification, with 119 (10.6%) identified at increased breast cancer risk and offered referral. Sixty-seven (56%) women recommended referral were less than 50 years old. From 66 women attending specialists, 26 (39.4%) were confirmed to have high risk and recommended annual surveillance (40–60 years) and surgical prevention; while 30 (45.5%) were confirmed at moderate risk, with 19 offered annual surveillance (40–50 years). The remaining 10 (15.2%) managed in primary care. None were recommended chemoprevention. In usual care practices, only ten women consulted with concerns about breast cancer family history. This study demonstrated proactive risk assessment in primary care enables accurate identification of women, including many younger women, at increased risk of breast cancer. To improve generalisability across the population, more active methods of engagement need to be explored.

Trial registration: CRUK Clinical Trials Database 11779.