Core Competencies in Cancer Genomics for Healthcare Professionals: Results From a Systematic Literature Review and a Delphi Process

Healthcare Professionals' Learning Needs and Perspectives on Essential Information in Genetic Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The increased demand for genetic testing and counseling necessitates healthcare professionals (HCPs) to improve their genetic competency through training programs. This systematic review identified HCPs' learning needs and their perspectives on essential information for families with hereditary cancer.

METHODS

This review covered studies published from 2013 to 2024 across five databases. Data were analyzed using a content analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies involving 332 HCPs were analyzed. Most studies focused on the learning needs of physicians caring for families affected by Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in North America and Europe. HCPs required training emphasizing practical counseling skills over the basics of genetics. Learning needs varied by profession: physicians needed training in assessing cancer risk and supporting decision-making in risk management; nurses required information on resources and the genetic care system; genetic counselors sought guidance on family communication and planning. Essential information identified for families included risk-reducing strategies, personalized cancer risk assessment, family implications, psychological issues, (cascade) genetic testing, and social concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings have implications for the development of training programs for HCPs, emphasizing the need for tailored training based on professions. Future research should explore the needs of HCPs caring for families with diverse hereditary cancers and cultural backgrounds.

Evidence-based consensus guidelines for ALS genetic testing and counseling

OBJECTIVE

Advances in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) gene discovery, ongoing gene therapy trials, and patient demand have driven increased use of ALS genetic testing. Despite this progress, the offer of genetic testing to persons with ALS is not yet "standard of care." Our primary goal is to develop clinical ALS genetic counseling and testing guidelines to improve and standardize genetic counseling and testing practice among neurologists, genetic counselors or any provider caring for persons with ALS.

METHODS

Core clinical questions were identified and a rapid review performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) 2015 method. Guideline recommendations were drafted and the strength of evidence for each recommendation was assessed by combining two systems: the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) System and the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP). A modified Delphi approach was used to reach consensus among a group of content experts for each guideline statement.

RESULTS

A total of 35 guideline statements were developed. In summary, all persons with ALS should be offered single-step genetic testing, consisting of a C9orf72 assay, along with sequencing of SOD1, FUS, and TARDBP, at a minimum. The key education and genetic risk assessments that should be provided before and after testing are delineated. Specific guidance regarding testing methods and reporting for C9orf72 and other genes is provided for commercial laboratories.

INTERPRETATION

These evidence-based, consensus guidelines will support all stakeholders in the ALS community in navigating benefits and challenges of genetic testing.

[Use of genome-wide testing in oncology: French expert opinion based on the Delphi methodology]

In oncology, genome-wide testing is a major element in facilitating the implementation of precision medicine. However, current recommendations do not always specify the indication and utility of these tests according to the type of cancer. A national consensus approach based on a modified Delphi methodology was set up to provide expert opinion on the use of genome-wide testing in clinical practice in France. Four groups of experts - 4 each representing the following topics of interest - were defined: non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast cancer, melanoma, and cancer of unknown primary (CUP). In each group, assertions were formulated by a lead expert (8, 5, 7 and 6, respectively) and rated by five panellists involved in the management of these cancers, on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Consensus was reached when 75% of the scores were above 7. In case of disagreement, the panellists were asked to justify their rate. In total, 24 statements reached consensus after two to four rounds of rating, depending on the group. While the experts advocated the routine use of genome-wide testing in the diagnostic management of NSCLC and CUP, they did not recommend the systematisation of these tests for breast cancer and melanoma. Nevertheless, access to innovation in France could soon remove certain barriers and allow greater standardisation of broad molecular screening in oncology.

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.

Educational Programme for Cancer Nurses in Genetics, Health Behaviors and Cancer Prevention: A Multidisciplinary Consensus Study

(1) Background: Most common hereditary cancers in Europe have been associated with lifestyle behaviors, and people affected are lacking follow up care. However, access to education programmes to increase knowledge on cancer and genetics and promote healthy lifestyle behaviors in people at high risk of cancer is scarce. This affects the quality of care of people with a hereditary risk of cancer. This study aimed to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on topics and competencies and competencies that cancer nurses need in relation to cancer, genetics, and health promotion. (2) Methods: A two-round online Delphi study was undertaken. Experts in cancer and genetics were asked to assess the relevance of eighteen items and to suggest additional terms. Consensus was defined as an overall agreement of at least 75%. (3) Results: A total of 74 multiprofessional experts from all around the world participated in this study including healthcare professionals working in genetics (39%), researchers in cancer and genetics (31%) and healthcare professionals with cancer patients (30%). Thirteen additional items were proposed. A total of thirty-one items reached consensus. (4) Conclusions: This multidisciplinary consensus study provide the essential elements to build an educational programme to increase cancer nurses’ skills to support the complex care of people living with a higher risk of cancer including addressing lifestyle behaviors. All professionals highlighted the importance of cancer nurses increasing their skills in cancer and genetics.

A Web Screening on Training Initiatives in Cancer Genomics for Healthcare Professionals

The disruptive advances in genomics contributed to achieve higher levels of precision in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. This scientific advance entails the need for greater literacy for all healthcare professionals. Our study summarizes the training initiatives conducted worldwide in cancer genomics field for healthcare professionals. We conducted a web search of the training initiatives aimed at improving healthcare professionals’ literacy in cancer genomics undertaken worldwide by using two search engines (Google and Bing) in English language and conducted from 2003 to 2021. A total of 85,649 initiatives were identified. After the screening process, 36 items were included. The majority of training programs were organized in the United States (47%) and in the United Kingdom (28%). Most of the initiatives were conducted in the last five years (83%) by universities (30%) and as web-based modalities (80%). In front of the technological advances in genomics, education in cancer genomics remains fundamental. Our results may contribute to provide an update on the development of educational programs to build a skilled and appropriately trained genomics health workforce in the future.

Genetic and genomic learning needs of oncologists and oncology nurses in the era of precision medicine: a scoping review

Genetic and genomic data are increasingly guiding clinical care for cancer patients. To meet the growing demand for precision medicine, patient-facing oncology staff will be a part of leading the provision of genomic testing. A scoping review was undertaken to identify the range of genetic and genomic learning needs of oncologists and oncology nurses. Learning needs were reported relating to interpretation of genomic data, clinical decision-making, patient communication and counseling, and fundamentals of genetics and genomics. There was a lack of empirical research specific to oncology nurses and their learning needs in tumor sequencing. Our findings suggest that oncologists and oncology nurses need tailored support, education and training to improve their confidence and skills in adopting genomic testing into clinical practice.

Stakeholder Engagement in Competency Framework Development in Health Professions: A Systematic Review

Competency framework development in health professions has downstream implications for all relevant stakeholders, from the professionals themselves, to organisations, and most importantly end users of services. However, there is little guidance related to what stakeholders might be involved in the competency development process, and when. This review aimed to systematically review literature related to competency framework development methodology in health, to identify the breadth and purpose of key stakeholders commonly involved in the process. Studies were identified using five electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ERIC) and a search of websites of organisations involved in curriculum or regulation using keywords related to competency frameworks. The total yield from all databases was 10,625 results, with 73 articles included in the final review. Most articles were from Australia (30%) and were conducted in the nursing (34%) profession. Unsurprisingly, practitioners (86%) and academics (75%) were typically engaged as stakeholders in competency framework development. While many competency frameworks were described as patient-focused, only 14 (19%) studies elected to include service users as stakeholders. Similarly, despite the multi-disciplinary focus described in some frameworks, only nine (12%) studies involved practitioners from other professions. Limiting the conceptualisation of competence to that determined by members of the profession itself may not provide the depth of insight required to capture the complexity of healthcare and address the needs of important stakeholder groups. Future methodology should attempt to engage a variety of relevant stakeholders such as external health professions and the community to match professional education to health service demands. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=128350.