Motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing: A systematic review

Racial and ethnic disparities in genomic testing among lung cancer patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Racial and ethnic disparities in genomic testing could exacerbate disparities in access to precision cancer therapies and survival-particularly in the context of lung cancer where genomic testing has been recommended for the past decade. However, prior studies assessing disparities in genomic testing have yielded mixed results.

METHODS

We conducted a systemic review to examine racial and ethnic disparities in the use of genomic testing among lung cancer patients in the United States. Two comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were conducted (September 2022, May 2023). Original studies that assessed rates of genomic testing by race or ethnicity were included. Findings were narratively synthesized by outcome.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2739 unique records, resulting in 18 included studies. All but 1 study were limited to patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer. Diagnosis years ranged from 2007 to 2022. Of the 18 studies, 11 found statistically significant differences in the likelihood of genomic testing by race or ethnicity; in 7 of these studies, testing was lower among Black patients compared with White or Asian patients. However, many studies lacked adjustment for key covariates and included patients with unclear eligibility for testing.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of studies, though not all, observed racial and ethnic disparities in the use of genomic testing among patients with lung cancer. Heterogeneity of study results throughout a period of changing clinical guidelines suggests that minoritized populations-Black patients in particular-have faced additional barriers to genomic testing, even if not universally observed at all institutions.

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.

A Video Intervention to Improve Patient Understanding of Tumor Genomic Testing in Patients with Cancer

Background

Tumor genomic testing (TGT) has become standard-of-care for most patients with advanced/metastatic cancer. Despite established guidelines, patient education prior to TGT is variable or frequently omitted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a concise (3-4 minute) video for patient education prior to TGT.

Methods

Based on a quality improvement cycle, an animated video was created to be applicable to any cancer type, incorporating culturally diverse images, available in English and Spanish. Patients undergoing standard-of care TGT were enrolled at a tertiary academic institution and completed validated survey instruments immediately prior to video viewing (T1) and immediately post-viewing (T2). Instruments included: 1) 10-question objective genomic knowledge/understanding; 2) 10-question video message-specific knowledge/recall; 3) 11-question Trust in Physician/Provider; 4) attitudes regarding TGT. The primary objective was change in outcomes from before to after the video was assessed with Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results

From April 2022 to May 2023, a total of 150 participants were enrolled (MBC n=53, LC n=38, OC n=59). For the primary endpoint, there was a significant increase in video message-specific knowledge (median 10 point increase; p<0.0001) with no significant change in genomic knowledge/understanding (p=0.89) or Trust in Physician/Provider (p=0.59). Results for five questions significantly improved, including the likelihood of TGT impact on treatment decision, incidental germline findings, and cost of testing. Improvement in video message-specific knowledge was consistent across demographic groups, including age, income, and education. Individuals with less educational attainment had had greater improvement from before to after video viewing.

Conclusions

A concise, 3-4 minute, broadly applicable video incorporating culturally diverse images administered prior to TGT significantly improved video message-specific knowledge across all demographic groups. This resource is publicly available at http://www.tumor-testing.com, with a goal to efficiently educate and empower patients regarding TGT while addressing guidelines within the flow of clinical practice.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05215769.

Development of a novel measure of advanced cancer patients' perceived utility of secondary germline findings from tumor genomic profiling

Objective

Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) can inform advanced cancer patients' treatment decisions, and also reveal secondary germline findings-information about inherited risks for cancer and other disorders. We sought to develop a measure of patient perceptions of the clinical and personal utility of secondary germline findings.

Methods

We developed a draft survey based on literature and patient interview data (n=40). We evaluated and refined the survey through cognitive interviews with advanced cancer patients who received secondary germline findings from TGP (n=10). The survey was psychometrically validated with data from two independent samples of advanced cancer patients undergoing TGP (total n=349).

Results

Cognitive interviews offered opportunities for survey refinement and confirmation of its comprehensible nature. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the survey identified 16 items across three subscales with strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.79): perceived utility for others, perceived utility for self and health, and confidence in secondary findings.

Conclusion

We developed a novel valid scale with promise for measuring advanced cancer patients' perceptions of the utility of secondary germline findings.

Innovation

We offer a new patient-derived measure of perceived utility of and confidence in secondary germline findings with potential applications for precision oncology research and clinical communication.

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.

Improving Uptake of Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment in a Remote Tailored Risk Communication and Navigation Intervention: Large Effect Size but Room to Grow

PURPOSE

Cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) is recommended for women with ovarian cancer or high-risk breast cancer, yet fewer than 30% receive recommended genetic services, with the lowest rates among underserved populations. We hypothesized that compared with usual care (UC) and mailed targeted print (TP) education, CGRA uptake would be highest among women receiving a phone-based tailored risk counseling and navigation intervention (TCN).

METHODS

In this three-arm randomized trial, women with ovarian or high-risk breast cancer were recruited from statewide cancer registries in Colorado, New Jersey, and New Mexico. Participants assigned to TP received a mailed educational brochure. Participants assigned to TCN received the mailed educational brochure, an initial phone-based psychoeducational session with a health coach, a follow-up letter, and a follow-up navigation phone call.

RESULTS

Participants' average age was 61 years, 25.4% identified as Hispanic, 5.9% identified as non-Hispanic Black, and 17.5% lived in rural areas. At 6 months, more women in TCN received CGRA (18.7%) than those in TP (3%; odds ratio, 7.4; 95% CI, 3.0 to 18.3; P < .0001) or UC (2.5%; odds ratio, 8.9; 95% CI, 3.4 to 23.5; P < .0001). There were no significant differences in CGRA uptake between TP and UC. Commonly cited barriers to genetic counseling were lack of provider referral (33.7%) and cost (26.5%), whereas anticipated difficulty coping with test results (14.0%) and cost (41.2%) were barriers for genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

TCN increased CGRA uptake in a group of geographically and ethnically diverse high-risk breast and ovarian cancer survivors. Remote personalized interventions that incorporate evidence-based health communication and behavior change strategies may increase CGRA among women recruited from statewide cancer registries.

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.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Use of Polygenic Scores in Clinical Practice and Population Health

Considerable progress continues to be made with regards to the value and use of disease associated polygenic scores (PGS). PGS aim to capture a person's genetic liability to a condition, disease, or a trait, combining information across many risk variants and incorporating their effect sizes. They are already available for clinicians and consumers to order in Australasia. However, debate is ongoing over the readiness of this information for integration into clinical practice and population health. This position statement provides the viewpoint of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA) regarding the clinical application of disease-associated PGS in both individual patients and population health. The statement details how PGS are calculated, highlights their breadth of possible application, and examines their current challenges and limitations. We consider fundamental lessons from Mendelian genetics and their continuing relevance to PGS, while also acknowledging the distinct elements of PGS. Use of PGS in practice should be evidence based, and the evidence for the associated benefit, while rapidly emerging, remains limited. Given that clinicians and consumers can already order PGS, their current limitations and key issues warrant consideration. PGS can be developed for most complex conditions and traits and can be used across multiple clinical settings and for population health. The HGSA's view is that further evaluation, including regulatory, implementation and health system evaluation are required before PGS can be routinely implemented in the Australasian healthcare system.

Understanding cancer genetic risk assessment motivations in a remote tailored risk communication and navigation intervention randomized controlled trial

Background

National guidelines recommend cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) (i.e. genetic counseling prior to genetic testing) for women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Less than one-half of eligible women obtain CGRA, leaving thousands of women and their family members without access to potentially life-saving cancer prevention interventions.

Purpose

The Genetic Risk Assessment for Cancer Education and Empowerment Project (GRACE) addressed this translational gap, testing the efficacy of a tailored counseling and navigation (TCN) intervention vs. a targeted print brochure vs. usual care on CGRA intentions. Selected behavioral variables were theorized to mediate CGRA intentions.

Methods

Breast and ovarian cancer survivors meeting criteria for guideline-based CGRA were recruited from three state cancer registries (N = 654), completed a baseline survey, and were randomized. TCN and targeted print arms received the brochure; TCN also participated in a tailored, telephone-based decision coaching and navigation session grounded in the Extended Parallel Process Model and Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Participants completed a one-month assessment. Logistic regression was used to compare the rate of CGRA intentions. CGRA intentions and theorized mediator scores (continuous level variables) were calculated using mixed model analysis.

Results

CGRA intentions increased for TCN (53.2%) vs. targeted print (26.7%) (OR = 3.129; 95% CI: 2.028, 4.827, p < .0001) and TCN vs. usual care (23.1%) (OR = 3.778, CI: 2.422, 5.894, p < .0001). Perceived risk (p = 0.023) and self-efficacy (p = 0.035) mediated CGRA intentions in TCN.

Conclusions

Improvements in CGRA intentions and theorized mediators support the use of a tailored communication intervention among women at increased HBOC risk. (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03326713.)Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03326713.

Motivations and Barriers to Participation in a Randomized Trial on Melanoma Genomic Risk: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

The evolution of polygenic scores for use in for disease prevention and control compels the development of guidelines to optimize their effectiveness and promote equitable use. Understanding the motivations and barriers to participation in genomics research can assist in drafting these standards. We investigated these in a community-based randomized controlled trial that examined the health behavioral impact of receiving personalized melanoma genomic risk information. We examined participant responses in a baseline questionnaire and conducted interviews post-trial participation. Motivations differed in two ways: (1) by gender, with those identifying as women placing greater importance on learning about their personal risk or familial risk, and how to reduce risk; and (2) by age in relation to learning about personal risk, and fear of developing melanoma. A barrier to participation was distrust in the handling of genomic data. Our findings provide new insights into the motivations for participating in genomics research and highlight the need to better target population subgroups including younger men, which will aid in tailoring recruitment for future genomic studies.

Clinical implications of homologous recombination repair mutations in prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is a disease with significant interpatient genomics, with a proportion of patients presenting mutations in key homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene aberrations, particularly in late-stage disease. A better understanding of the genomic landscape of prostate cancer and the prognostic and predictive value of HRR mutations could lead to more precise care for prostate cancer patients. BRCA1/2 mutations are associated with a more aggressive disease course and higher risk of developing lethal prostate cancer, but also identify patients who could benefit from directed therapeutic strategies with PARP inhibitors. Other HRR mutations are also frequent but their prognostic and predictive value for prostate cancer patients is less clear. Moreover, a proportion of these mutations are associated with inherited germline defects, being relevant for the patients' risk of second malignancies but also to inform their relatives' risk of cancer through cascade testing. In this manuscript, we review current knowledge of the prognostic and predictive value for different HHR alterations across the different prostate cancer disease states. Additionally, we assess the challenges to implement genomic testing in clinical practice for prostate cancer patients.

Psychological predictors of cancer patients' and their relatives' attitudes towards the return of genomic sequencing results

This study assessed the psychological predictors of attitudes toward the return of germline genomic sequencing results in cancer patients and their biological relatives with a likely genetic basis for their cancer diagnosis, who completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing genomic sequencing. Of 602 probands and relatives, 94% of probands and 89% of relatives thought people would like to be informed about single-gene conditions for which there is prevention or treatment. Amongst relatives, this view was associated with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (66%) and relatives (59%) thought people would be interested in learning about single-gene conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment. Amongst probands, this view was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty and amongst relatives with higher self-efficacy. Probands (92%) and relatives (90%) thought people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a major impact on health. Amongst probands this view was associated with lower perceived susceptibility of cancer recurrence, and amongst relatives, with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (86%) and relatives (86%) thought that people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a lower impact on health, and this view was associated with a lower perceived susceptibility of recurrence amongst probands. Inconclusion, these findings show that individuals' attitudes about the return of results depend on the perceived utility of different types of tests. Therefore, individuals need to gain a clear understanding of test utility, and appropriate consent processes are required to achieve informed choices.

Do current family history-based genetic testing guidelines contribute to breast cancer health inequities?

Prior to the recommended age for population-based breast cancer screening by mammography, which ranges from 40−50 years depending on guidelines, the main way to identify higher risk women for earlier breast cancer (BC) screening to improve outcomes and discuss targeted chemoprevention is through specific clinical guidelines which are largely based on family history of breast cancer and known mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes. The annual percent change (APC) in early-onset BC continues to rise, with the higher early-onset cancer burden and mortality continuing to be seen in non-Hispanic black (NHB) women compared to non-Hispanic white (NHW) women. Coupled with the increasing incidence overall as well as the lower percent of BC family history reported in NHB women compared with that of NHW women means that continued reliance on guidelines to identify women for genetic screening and initiation of early BC screening based largely on family history could lead to even greater BC health inequities. The similarity in the prevalence of mutations in key BC susceptibility genes between NHB and NHW women contrasts sharply to the differences in age-specific incidence rates between NHB and NHW women, supporting that there must be environmental modifiers that are contributing to the increased incidence in NHB women. This reality further argues for identifying NHB women early in adulthood through genetic testing who may benefit from tailored BC risk-reduction programs and early BC screening.

Improving our model of cascade testing for hereditary cancer risk by leveraging patient peer support: a concept report

Consensus and evidence suggest that cascade testing is critical to achieve the promise of cancer genetic testing. However, barriers to cascade testing include effective family communication of genetic risk information and family members' ability to cope with genetic risk. These barriers are further complicated by the developmental needs of unaffected family members during critical windows for family communication and adaptation. Peer support could address these barriers. We provide two illustrative examples of ongoing BRCA1/2-related clinical trials that apply a peer support model to improve family communication and functioning. Peer support can augment currently available genetic services to facilitate adjustment to and effective use of cancer genetic risk information. Importantly, this scalable approach can address the presence of cancer risk within families across multiple developmental stages. This applies a family-centered perspective that accommodates all potentially at-risk relatives. This peer support model can be further applied to emerging topics in clinical genetics to expand reach and impact.