Investigating barriers to genetic counseling and germline mutation testing in women with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and Lynch syndrome

Impact of barriers and motivators on intention and confidence to undergo hereditary cancer genetic testing

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes can provide lifesaving information allowing for individualized cancer screening, prevention, and treatment. However, the determinants, both barriers and motivators, of genetic testing intention are not well described. A survey of barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to adult patients eligible for genetic testing based on cancer diagnosis who previously have not had genetic testing (n = 201). Associations between barriers/motivators with testing intention and confidence were examined first by correlation followed by multivariable linear regression model holding constant potential covariates. Seven barrier items from two domains (logistics and genetic testing knowledge) were found to significantly negatively correlate with genetic testing intention. Unexpectedly, three barrier items had significant positive correlation with genetic testing intention; these were related to family worry (passing a condition on to future generations) and testing knowledge (needing more information on the genetic testing process and what it has to offer). Ten barrier items had significant negative correlation with confidence to get a genetic test and encompassed four domains: stigma, insurance/genetic discrimination, knowledge, and cost. All motivator items were associated with intention to get a genetic test, while none were associated with confidence. Multivariable analysis yielded six total barriers (five from the knowledge domain, one from cost domain) and two motivators (relieved to know and treatment impact) that were significantly associated with genetic testing intention or confidence when controlling for demographic characteristics. These findings indicate the need for tailored interventions to amplify motivating factors and counter-message barriers to enhance patient motivation and confidence to undergo testing.

Real-World Data on Institutional Implementation of Screening for Mismatch Repair Deficiency and Lynch Syndrome in Endometrial Cancer Patients

Lynch syndrome is an inherited tumor syndrome caused by a pathogenic germline variant in DNA mismatch repair genes. As the leading cause of hereditary endometrial cancer, international guidelines recommend universal screening in women with endometrial cancer. However, testing for Lynch syndrome is not yet well established in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate adherence to our Lynch syndrome screening algorithm. A retrospective, single-center cohort study was conducted of all endometrial cancer patients undergoing surgical treatment at the Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, between 2017 and 2022. Adherence to immunohistochemical analysis of mismatch repair status, and, if indicated, to MLH1 promoter hypermethylation and to genetic counseling and testing was assessed. Of all 331 endometrial cancer patients, 102 (30.8%) were mismatch repair-deficient and 3 (0.9%) patients were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome. Overall screening adherence was 78.2%, with a notable improvement over the six years from 61.4% to 90.6%. A major reason for non-adherence was lack of provider recommendation for testing, with advanced patient age as a potential patient risk factor. Simplification of the algorithm through standardized reflex screening was recommended to provide optimal medical care for those affected and to allow for cascading testing of at-risk relatives.

PHLPP1 inhibits the growth and aerobic glycolysis activity of human ovarian granular cells through inactivating AKT pathway

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a disorder characterized by hyperandrogenism, ovulatory dysfunction, and polycystic ovarian morphologic features, and PCOS is associated with infertility. PH domain Leucine-rich repeat Protein Phosphatase 1 (PHLPP1) has been shown to regulate AKT. The aim of present study is to investigate the role of PHLPP1 in PCOS.

METHODS

The expression levels of PHLPP1 in dihydrotestosterone (DHT)-treated human ovarian granular KGN cells were determined by qRT-PCR and Western blot. PHLPP1 was silenced or overexpressed using lentivirus. Cell proliferation was detected by CCK-8. Apoptosis and ROS generation were analyzed by flow cytometry. Glycolysis was analyzed by measuring extracellular acidification rate (ECAR).

RESULTS

DHT treatment suppressed proliferation, promoted apoptosis, enhanced ROS, and inhibited glycolysis in KGN cells. PHLPP1 silencing alleviated the DHT-induced suppression of proliferation and glycolysis, and promotion of apoptosis and ROS in KGN cells. PHLPP1 regulated cell proliferation and glycolysis in human KGN cells via the AKT signaling pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that PHLPP1 mediates the proliferation and aerobic glycolysis activity of human ovarian granular cells through regulating AKT signaling.

A practical method for integrating community priorities in planning and implementing cancer control programs

PURPOSE

Community engagement is essential in effective public health programs. This paper illustrates the methods used to engage community in the development of a multi-level implementation intervention to address cancer disparities related to hereditary cancer syndromes.

METHODS

Implementation Mapping (IM), was used to guide the co-creation of an intervention. Key partners were recruited to a 13-member statewide community advisory board (CAB) representing healthcare and community-based organizations. As part of a needs assessment, a 3-round modified Delphi method with the CAB was used to identify implementation outcomes to use in later steps of IM. An anonymous online survey of a validated community engagement measure assessed CAB members' satisfaction with the process.

RESULTS

Using a modified Delphi method as part of the needs assessment of IM, the CAB identified three broad categories of strategies: Changing infrastructure using patient navigation; training and educating patients, navigators and providers; and supporting clinicians in case identification and management. Self-reported satisfaction with the IM and Delphi process was high.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation Mapping facilitated the use of available evidence, new data, and community engagement to identify strategies to improve the delivery of programs to reduce hereditary cancer disparities. The modified Delphi method was easy to administer in a virtual environment and may be a useful for others in community-engaged research.

Germline Testing Around the Globe: Challenges in Different Practice Settings

Cancer is an increasing global public health burden. Lately, more emphasis has emerged on the importance of heredity in cancer, mostly driven by the introduction of germline genetic variants-directed therapeutics. It is true that 40% of cancer risk is attributed to modifiable environmental and lifestyle factors; still, 16% of cancers could be heritable, accounting for 2.9 of the 18.1 million cases diagnosed worldwide. At least two third of those will be diagnosed in countries with limited resources-low- and middle-income countries, especially where high rates of consanguine marriage and early age at diagnosis are already prevalent. Both are hallmarks of hereditary cancer. This creates a new opportunity for prevention, early detection, and recently therapeutic intervention. However, this opportunity is challenged by many obstacles along the path to addressing germline testing in patients with cancer in the clinic worldwide. Global collaboration and expertise exchange are important to bridge the knowledge gap and facilitate practical implementation. Adapting existing guidelines and prioritization according to local resources are essential to address the unique needs and overcome the unique barriers of each society.

Psychosocial factors impacting barriers and motivators to cancer genetic testing

BACKGROUND

Only a small proportion of patients who qualify for clinical genetic testing for cancer susceptibility get testing. Many patient-level barriers contribute to low uptake. In this study, we examined self-reported patient barriers and motivators for cancer genetic testing.

METHODS

A survey comprised of both new and existing measures related to barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to patients with a diagnosis of cancer at a large academic medical center. Patients who self-reported receiving a genetic test were included in these analyses (n = 376). Responses about emotions following testing as well as barriers and motivators prior to getting testing were examined. Group differences in barriers and motivators by patient demographic characteristics were examined.

RESULTS

Being assigned female at birth was associated with increased emotional, insurance, and family concerns as well as increased health benefits compared to patients assigned male at birth. Younger respondents had significantly higher emotional and family concerns compared to older respondents. Recently diagnosed respondents expressed fewer concerns about insurance implications and emotional concerns. Those with a BRCA-related cancer had higher scores on social and interpersonal concerns scale than those with other cancers. Participants with higher depression scores indicated increased emotional, social and interpersonal, and family concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported depression emerged as the most consistent factor influencing report of barriers to genetic testing. By incorporating mental health resources into clinical practice, oncologists may better identify those patients who might need more assistance following through with a referral for genetic testing and the response afterwards.

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.

Factors Affecting Genetic Consultation in Adolescent and Young Adult Patients With Sarcoma

BACKGROUND

Given a link between sarcomas and hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes, including Li-Fraumeni syndrome, the consideration for genetic counseling is recommended for all adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients diagnosed with sarcoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate factors influencing genetic consultations in AYA patients with sarcoma at the University of Wisconsin (UW).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on AYA patients diagnosed with sarcoma between the ages of 15 and 39 years who were seen at least once between 2015 to 2019 at UW. Our chart review identified discussions regarding genetics, referrals to genetics, genetic consultations, and results of genetic testing. Variables hypothesized to affect patient referrals for genetic consultation were identified a priori. Descriptive statistical methods and a univariate analysis were used to identify patient characteristics associated with genetic counseling referral.

RESULTS

We identified 87 AYA patients with sarcoma. Only 19 (22%) of these patients had documentation of a discussion about genetics, 15 (17%) of whom were subsequently referred for genetic consultation. Of these 15 patients, 9 (60%) were seen in consultation. All 9 patients seen by genetics underwent genetic testing, with 4 (44%) of these patients having identified heritable cancer predisposition syndromes. Likelihood for genetics referral was linked most strongly to documented genetics discussion with an oncology provider (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the recommendation for consideration for genetic counseling in AYA patients with sarcoma, <25% of such patients in our study had a documented discussion about genetics. Supporting this need, all referred patients met criteria for genetic testing, and 44% of tested patients were found to have a heritable cancer predisposition syndrome. These data support the initial conversation by a provider as critical to genetic referral and suggest the need for more specific national recommendations for the genetic evaluation of all AYA patients with sarcoma.

Impact of changing guidelines on genetic testing and surveillance recommendations in a contemporary cohort of breast cancer survivors with family history of pancreatic cancer

Changing practice guidelines and recommendations have important implications for cancer survivors. This study investigated genetic testing patterns and outcomes and reported family history of pancreatic cancer (FHPC) in a large registry population of breast cancer (BC) patients. Variables including clinical and demographic characteristics, FHPC in a first or second-degree relative, and genetic testing outcomes were analyzed for BC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 in the NYU Langone Health Breast Cancer Database. Among 3334 BC patients, 232 (7%) had a positive FHPC. BC patients with FHPC were 1.68 times more likely to have undergone genetic testing (p < 0.001), but 33% had testing for BRCA1/2 only and 44% had no genetic testing. Pathogenic germline variants (PGV) were identified in 15/129 (11.6%) BC patients with FHPC, and in 145/1315 (11.0%) BC patients without FHPC. Across both groups, updates in genetic testing criteria and recommendations could impact up to 80% of this cohort. Within a contemporary cohort of BC patients, 7% had a positive FHPC. The majority of these patients (56%) had no genetic testing, or incomplete testing by current standards, suggesting under-diagnosis of PC risk. This study supports recommendations for survivorship care that incorporate ongoing genetic risk assessment and counseling.

Maximizing cancer prevention through genetic navigation for Lynch syndrome detection in women with newly diagnosed endometrial and nonserous/nonmucinous epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations for reflex immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins to identify Lynch syndrome (LS), the uptake of genetic assessment by those who meet referral criteria is low. The authors implemented a comprehensive genetic navigation program to increase the uptake of genetic testing for LS in patients with endometrial cancer (EC) or nonserous/nonmucinous ovarian cancer (OC).

METHODS

Participants with newly diagnosed EC or OC were prospectively recruited from 3 cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Family history questionnaires were used to assess LS-specific family history. Reflex IHC for MMR proteins was performed with the inclusion of clinical directives in pathology reports. A trained genetic navigator initiated a genetic referral on behalf of the treating physician and facilitated genetic referrals to the closest genetics center.

RESULTS

A total of 841 participants (642 with EC, 172 with OC, and 27 with synchronous EC/OC) consented to the study; 194 (23%) were MMR-deficient by IHC. Overall, 170 women (20%) were eligible for a genetic assessment for LS: 35 on the basis of their family history alone, 24 on the basis of their family history and IHC, 82 on the basis of IHC alone, and 29 on the basis of clinical discretion. After adjustments for participants who died (n = 6), 149 of 164 patients (91%) completed a genetic assessment, and 111 were offered and completed genetic testing. Thirty-four women (4.0% of the total cohort and 30.6% of those with genetic testing) were diagnosed with LS: 5 with mutL homolog 1 (MLH1), 9 with mutS homolog 2 (MSH2), 15 with mutS homolog 6 (MSH6), and 5 with PMS2.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a navigated genetic program resulted in a high rate of genetic assessment (>90%) in patients with gynecologic cancer at risk for LS.

A scoping review of social and behavioral science research to translate genomic discoveries into population health impact

Since the completion of the Human Genome Project, progress toward translating genomic research discoveries to address population health issues has been limited. Several meetings of social and behavioral scientists have outlined priority research areas where advancement of translational research could increase population health benefits of genomic discoveries. In this review, we track the pace of progress, study size and design, and focus of genomics translational research from 2012 to 2018 and its concordance with five social and behavioral science recommended priorities. We conducted a review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Guidelines for Scoping Reviews. Steps involved completing a search in five databases and a hand search of bibliographies of relevant literature. Our search (from 2012 to 2018) yielded 4,538 unique studies; 117 were included in the final analyses. Two coders extracted data including items from the PICOTS framework. Analysis included descriptive statistics to help identify trends in pace, study size and design, and translational priority area. Among the 117 studies included in our final sample, nearly half focused on genomics applications that have evidence to support translation or implementation into practice (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tier 1 applications). Common study designs were cross-sectional (40.2%) and qualitative (24.8%), with average sample sizes of 716 across all studies. Most often, studies addressed public understanding of genetics and genomics (33.3%), risk communication (29.1%), and intervention development and testing of interventions to promote behavior change (19.7%). The number of studies that address social and behavioral science priority areas is extremely limited and the pace of this research continues to lag behind basic science advances. Much of the research identified in this review is descriptive and related to public understanding, risk communication, and intervention development and testing of interventions to promote behavior change. The field has been slow to develop and evaluate public health-friendly interventions and test implementation approaches that could enable health benefits and equitable access to genomic discoveries. As the completion of the human genome approaches its 20th anniversary, full engagement of transdisciplinary efforts to address translation challenges will be required to close this gap.

Universal access to genetic counseling for women with epithelial ovarian cancer in Nova Scotia: Evaluating a new collaborative care model

Women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 have a significantly increased lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancers. The availability of genetic testing to identify BRCA1/2 carriers is imperative to disease prevention and treatment. We evaluated the effectiveness of a new collaborative care model in Nova Scotia, involving the integration of genetic counselors into tumor board rounds, reduction in time allotted for initial genetic counseling appointments from 60 to 45 min, and a standardized dictation template, to increase referral rate for genetic counseling. We also assessed the study cohorts' preferences on timing for genetic testing. A retrospective chart review was performed on all women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) from 2012 to 2017 (N = 386). Pertinent clinical outcomes were categorized and wait times to different nodes of the clinical pathway assessed. A questionnaire was sent to this same cohort of women to identify preference for the timing of genetic testing (n = 103). The chi-square and Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests were used to compare demographic and clinical variables pre- and post-care model implementation. We identified a 48.2% (95% CI: 39.4-56.7, p < .001) increase in referral for genetic counseling following implementation of the new care model. Median time from diagnosis to referral decreased by 74.0 days (p < .001) and median time from referral to first appointment by 54.0 days (p < .001). 56.3% of women desired referral at the time of diagnosis. This care model for women newly diagnosed with EOC in Nova Scotia was successful in increasing referral rates for genetic counseling. Majority of women pursued genetic testing following and favored that referral for genetic counseling be made at the time of diagnosis, highlighting the importance for timely access.

Germline Mutations in Other Homologous Recombination Repair-Related Genes Than BRCA1/2: Predictive or Prognostic Factors?

The homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway repairs double-strand DNA breaks, mostly by BRCA1 and BRCA2, although other proteins such as ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 are also involved. BRCA1/2 germline mutations are targeted by PARP inhibitors. The aim of this commentary is to explore whether germline mutations in HRR-related genes other than BRCA1/2 have to be considered as prognostic factors or predictive to therapies by discussing the results of two articles published in December 2020. The TBCRC 048 trial published by Tung et al. showed an impressive objective response rate to olaparib in metastatic breast cancer patients with germline PALB2 mutation compared to germline ATM and CHEK2 mutation carriers. Additionally, Yadav et al. observed a significantly longer overall survival in pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients with germline HRR mutations compared to non-carriers. In our opinion, assuming that PALB2 is a high-penetrant gene with a key role in the HRR system, PALB2 mutations are predictive factors for response to treatment. Moreover, germline mutations in the ATM gene provide a better outcome in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, being more often associated to wild-type KRAS. In conclusion, sequencing of HRR-related genes other than BRCA1/2 should be routinely offered as part of a biological characterization of pancreatic and breast cancers.

Examining information-seeking behavior in genetic testing for cancer predisposition: A qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess information needs and information sources and seeks to illustrate what at-risk individuals consider motivators of and barriers to information-seeking before and after genetic testing for cancer predisposition.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with people seeking genetic counseling in Switzerland were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis. Wilson's model of information behavior was the theoretical framework.

RESULTS

We identified four themes that illustrate motivators of and barriers to information-seeking: attitudes and emotions; knowledge; social environment; and demographic factors. We also elucidated information needs and collected participants' information sources.

CONCLUSION

This study£s empirical approach helps healthcare professionals to understand their patients' behaviors and wishes concerning information-seeking more concretely than theoretical models alone. The study also identifies information gaps, especially outside the genetic counseling setting.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Genetic counselors and other healthcare professionals need to purposefully assist patients in finding trustworthy and accessible information. Healthcare professionals in all disciplines need to be educated about predictive genetic testing.

Evaluation of a nationwide Dutch guideline to detect Lynch syndrome in patients with endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

In the Netherlands a nationwide guideline was introduced in 2016, which recommended routine Lynch syndrome screening (LSS) for all women with endometrial cancer (EC) <70 years of age. LSS consists of immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for loss of mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression, supplemented with MLH1 methylation analysis if indicated. Test results are evaluated by the treating gynaecologist, who refers eligible patients to a clinical geneticist. We evaluated the implementation of this guideline.

METHODS

From the nation-wide pathology database we selected all women diagnosed with EC < 70 years of age, treated from 1.6.2016-1.6.2017 in 14 hospitals. We collected data on the results of LSS and follow up of cases with suspected LS.

RESULTS

In 183 out of 204 tumours (90%) LSS was performed. In 41 cases (22%) MMR protein expression was lost, in 25 cases due to hypermethylation of the MLH1 promotor. One patient was known with a pathogenic MLH1 variant. The option of genetic counselling was discussed with 12 of the 15 remaining patients, of whom three declined. After counselling by the genetic counsellor nine patients underwent germline testing. In two no pathogenic germline variant was detected, two were diagnosed with a pathogenic PMS2 variant, and five with a pathogenic MSH6 variant, in concordance with the IHC profiles.

CONCLUSION

Coverage of LSS was high (90%), though referral for genetic counselling could be improved. Gynaecologists ought to be aware of the benefits and possible drawbacks of knowing mutational status, and require training in discussing this with their patients.

Associations of sociodemographic and clinical factors with gastrointestinal cancer risk assessment appointment completion

Cancer risk assessment services are important for patient care; effective use requires appropriate provider referral, accurate scheduling processes, and completed attendance at booked appointments. Sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with gastrointestinal cancer (GIC)-specific risk assessment appointments remain unstudied; therefore, we aimed to identify factors associated with appointment completion in a GIC risk assessment program at a tertiary academic center. Retrospective chart review was conducted on all patients scheduled for an appointment in the Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk Evaluation Program (GI-CREP) between January 2016 and December 2017. Data collected included demographic and clinical factors. Chi-square and Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests compared variables among patients based on the study outcome of whether a GI-CREP appointment was completed; marginal standardization was used to predict the standardized percentage of patients that had appointment completion. A total of 676 patients had a scheduled GI-CREP appointment; 32 individuals were excluded due to incomplete information or scheduling error, resulting in 644 patients available for final analysis. Our study population was predominantly female (61%), White (77%), and married (64%), had private healthcare insurance (76%), and lacked a personal history of cancer (60%). Referrals internal to the healthcare system were most common (77%), with gastroenterologists as the most frequent referring provider (42%). Seventy-five percent of scheduled individuals had appointment completion, while 25% of individuals did not. Independent predictors for an incomplete GI-CREP appointment included Medicaid insurance (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.21-4.28, p = .01), self-identified Black race (OR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.20-3.25, p = .008), and personal history of cancer (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.11-2.31, p = .01). These data highlight existing disparities in GIC risk assessment appointment completion associated with race, health insurance coverage, and medical status. Further studies of these areas are necessary to ensure equitable access to important GIC risk assessment services.

Uptake of testing for germline BRCA mutations in patients with non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancers in Western Australia: a comparison of different genetic counseling methods

Introduction

Patients with non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers should be referred for genetic testing because approximately 15% will carry an inherited mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 cancer susceptibility genes. However, referral rates for genetic testing remain low. For patients who carry a BRCA mutation, failure to refer for genetic testing results in missed opportunities for therapy and prevention of future cancers in the patient and at-risk relatives. In Western Australia between July 2013 and June 2015, 40.6% of patients with non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers discussed at a statewide gynecologic oncology tumor board were referred for genetic testing. Our objective was to investigate the proportion of patients with non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers in Western Australia referred for BRCA1/2 testing from July 2015 to December 2017, following the introduction of mainstreaming and tele-counseling. A secondary aim was to compare the uptake of genetic testing between different genetic counseling modalities.

Methods

Retrospective case series. All patients with high-grade non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers discussed at the weekly Western Australian gynecologic oncology tumor board meeting, between July 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017, and those referred for BRCA mutation testing, were ascertained.

Results

A total of 343 women were eligible for referral; 63 patients were excluded, leaving 280 patients for analysis. 220/280 patients were referred for genetic testing (78.6%). There were no differences in uptake of genetic testing by mode of genetic counseling.

Discussion

A significant increase in referrals of eligible patients for genetic testing was observed in 2015–2017 compared with 2013–2014. Although there were no differences in uptake of genetic testing by mode of counseling, mainstreaming and tele-counseling provide alternative options for patients that may lead to higher uptake of genetic testing.

A patient-centered mobile health application to motivate use of genetic counseling among women with ovarian cancer: A pilot randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Despite current guidelines recommending women with ovarian cancer receive genetic risk evaluation by a genetic counselor, utilization has historically been low. We sought to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a week-long mobile Application for Genetic Information on Cancer (mAGIC) intervention aimed to persuade women with ovarian cancer to pursue genetic counseling.

METHODS

The mobile application intervention was based on the Fogg Behavior Model, and consisted of three parts: (1) identifying barriers, (2) developing motivators, and (3) providing triggers to action. The Health Belief Model was used to guide content development. We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled pilot trial among 104 untested women with a history of epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer with the primary objective of increasing uptake of cancer genetic counseling services.

RESULTS

Utilization of cancer genetic counseling services improved in both study arms over historical controls, however there was no statistically significant difference between them (intervention: 54.5% versus control: 38.6%; p = 0.14). However, compared to controls, women randomized to the mAGIC intervention demonstrated greater knowledge of hereditary cancer (0-10 scale; 9.4 ± 1.0 vs. 7.1 ± 1.5; p < 0.0001), which persisted for at least three months. Additionally, 96% of women in the intervention group reported they had talked with their family about genetic counseling compared to 77% in the control group (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The mAGIC intervention did not result in increased uptake of genetic counseling, however it provided significant secondary benefits, including increased participants' knowledge about hereditary ovarian cancer, self-efficacy, and their reported communication with family members. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02877862.

Preferences of women with epithelial ovarian cancer for aspects of genetic testing

Background

Although genetic testing is recommended for women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), little is known about patient preferences for various testing options. We measured relative preferences for attributes of testing in women with EOC referred for genetic counseling.

Methods

Subjects were recruited to participate in a discrete-choice-experiment survey to elicit preferences for attributes of genetic testing: out-of-pocket cost ($0, $100, $250, or $1000), probability of a deleterious mutation (60, 80%, or 88%), probability of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) result (5, 20%, or 40%), sample requirements (blood or saliva), and turn-around time (1, 2 or 4 weeks). Subjects viewed educational videos followed by a series of choices between pairs of constructed genetic tests with varying attribute levels. Random-parameters logit was used to estimate preference weights for attribute levels. Relative importance weights and money-equivalent values were calculated.

Results

Ninety-four patients were enrolled; 68 (76.4%) presented for genetic counseling. Test cost was the most important attribute to subjects (importance weight = 41 out of 100) followed by probability to detect deleterious mutations (36) and probability of a VUS result (20). Sample requirements and turnaround time did not drive test choices. Subjects were willing to pay an additional $155 and $70 for incremental 5% improvements in the probability to detect deleterious mutations and probability of a VUS result. At genetics consultation, 55/68 (80.9%) subjects chose multigene testing.

Conclusions

Low out-of-pocket cost, high probability of detecting deleterious mutations and high probability of a VUS result are preferred by patients with EOC considering genetic testing.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40661-019-0066-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.