Modified panel-based genetic counseling for ovarian cancer susceptibility: A randomized non-inferiority study

TARGET: A Randomized, Noninferiority Trial of a Pretest, Patient-Driven Genetic Education Webtool Versus Genetic Counseling for Prostate Cancer Germline Testing

PURPOSE

Germline genetic testing (GT) is important for prostate cancer (PCA) management, clinical trial eligibility, and hereditary cancer risk. However, GT is underutilized and there is a shortage of genetic counselors. To address these gaps, a patient-driven, pretest genetic education webtool was designed and studied compared with traditional genetic counseling (GC) to inform strategies for expanding access to genetic services.

METHODS

Technology-enhanced acceleration of germline evaluation for therapy (TARGET) was a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04447703) comparing a nine-module patient-driven genetic education webtool versus pretest GC. Participants completed surveys measuring decisional conflict, satisfaction, and attitudes toward GT at baseline, after pretest education/counseling, and after GT result disclosure. The primary end point was noninferiority in reducing decisional conflict between webtool and GC using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. Mixed-effects regression modeling was used to compare decisional conflict between groups. Participants opting for GT received a 51-gene panel, with results delivered to participants and their providers.

RESULTS

The analytic data set includes primary outcome data from 315 participants (GC [n = 162] and webtool [n = 153]). Mean difference in decisional conflict score changes between groups was -0.04 (one-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 2.54; P = .01), suggesting the patient-driven webtool was noninferior to GC. Overall, 145 (89.5%) GC and 120 (78.4%) in the webtool arm underwent GT, with pathogenic variants in 15.8% (8.7% in PCA genes). Satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms; knowledge of cancer genetics was higher but attitudes toward GT were less favorable in the webtool arm.

CONCLUSION

The results of the TARGET study support the use of patient-driven digital webtools for expanding access to pretest genetic education for PCA GT. Further studies to optimize patient experience and evaluate them in diverse patient populations are warranted.

Communication About Negative and Uncertain Results: Interactional Dilemmas During a Genetic Telehealth Consult

This case study focuses on a video telehealth consult to discuss genetic testing results. Participants include a Genetic Counselor (GC) and a Patient (P) previously diagnosed with ovarian cancer who is currently undergoing chemotherapy treatments. Utilizing conversation analysis (CA), attention is first given to a series of interactional dilemmas as GC delivers and P responds to negative, uncertain, and complex test results. Specific findings address practices employed by GC to structure the encounter and establish authority, impacts on P's participation and understandings, recurring and at times problematic orientations to "negative" findings, and inherent ambiguities faced by GC and P when attempting to discern good and bad news. Close examination of these moments provides a unique opportunity to identify, describe, and explain genetic counseling as a co-produced, interactional achievement. These findings are then integrated with patient's post-counseling survey (susceptibility, anxiety, uncertainty, fear, and hope), including reported experiences which broaden understandings of the interactional environment. Specific recommendations are raised for improving counseling skills, enhancing patients' understandings, and building therapeutic alliances addressing both patients' emotional circumstances and the complexities of genetic test results.

Genetic counseling and testing for females at elevated risk for breast cancer: Protocol for the randomized controlled trial of the Know Your Risk intervention

BACKGROUND

Genetic counseling and testing have an important role in the care of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer. However, conventional pre- and post-test genetic counseling is labor and time intensive, less accessible for patients living outside major urban centers, and impractical on a large scale. A patient-driven approach to genetic counseling and testing may increase access, improve patients' experiences, affect efficiency of clinical practice, and help meet workforce demand. The objective of this 2-arm randomized controlled trial is to determine the efficacy of Know Your Risk (KYR), a genetic counseling patient preference intervention.

METHODS

Females (n = 1000) at elevated risk (>20% lifetime) for breast cancer will be randomized to the KYR intervention or conventional genetic counseling. The study will provide comprehensive assessment of breast cancer risk by multigene panel testing and validated polygenic risk score. Primary outcome is adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for a clinical encounter every 6-12 months and an annual mammogram (breast MRI if recommended) determined by medical record review. Secondary outcomes include adherence to other recommended cancer screening tests determined by medical record review and changes in breast cancer knowledge, perception of risk, post-test/counseling distress, and satisfaction with counseling by completion of three surveys during the study. Study aims will be evaluated for non-inferiority of the KYR intervention compared to conventional genetic counseling.

CONCLUSION

If efficacious, the KYR intervention has the potential to improve patients' experience and may change how genetic counseling is delivered, inform best practices, and reduce workforce burden.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT05325151.

The effects of decision aids for genetic counselling among people considering genetic testing: A systematic review

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of decision aids for genetic counsellees to improve their conflicts in decision-making and psychological well-being when considering genetic tests for inherited genetic diseases, and their knowledge about these tests and their genetic risks.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Six electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, OVID Nursing, APA PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched from inception to May 2022.

REVIEW METHODS

Only randomised controlled trials that examined the effect of decision aids for information provision centring genetic testing on outcomes including decisional conflicts, informed choice making, knowledge on genetic risks or genetic tests, and psychological outcomes among participants who had undergone genetic counselling were included. Their risk of bias was assessed using the Version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials. Results were presented narratively. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist.

RESULTS

Eight included studies examined the effect of booklet-based, computer-based, film-based or web-based decision aids on individuals considering genetic testing for their increased cancer risks. Despite contrasting findings across studies, they showed that decision aids enable genetic counsellees to feel more informed in decision-making on genetic tests, although most showed no effect on decisional conflict. Knowledge of genetic counsellees on genetic risks and genetic tests were increased after the use of decision aids. Most studies showed no significant effect on any psychological outcomes assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Review findings corroborate the use of decision aids to enhance the effective delivery of genetic counselling, enabling genetic counsellees to gain more knowledge of genetic tests and feel more informed in making decisions to have these tests.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Decision aids can be used to support nurse-led genetic counselling for better knowledge acquisition and decision-making among counsellees.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient or public contribution is not applicable as this is a systematic review.

Patient decision support resources inform decisions about cancer susceptibility genetic testing and risk management: a systematic review of patient impact and experience

Background

Patients with genetic cancer susceptibility are presented with complex management options involving difficult decisions, for example about genetic testing, treatment, screening and risk-reducing surgery/medications. This review sought to explore the experience of patients using decision support resources in this context, and the impact on decision-making outcomes.

Methods

Systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies involving adults with or without cancer who used a decision support resource pre- or post-genetic test for any cancer susceptibility. To gather a broad view of existing resources and gaps for development, digital or paper-based patient resources were included and not limited to decision aids. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise patient impact and experience.

Results

Thirty-six publications describing 27 resources were included. Heterogeneity of resources and outcome measurements highlighted the multiple modes of resource delivery and personal tailoring acceptable to and valued by patients. Impact on cognitive, emotional, and behavioural outcomes was mixed, but mainly positive. Findings suggested clear potential for quality patient-facing resources to be acceptable and useful.

Conclusions

Decision support resources about genetic cancer susceptibility are likely useful to support decision-making, but should be co-designed with patients according to evidence-based frameworks. More research is needed to study impact and outcomes, particularly in terms of longer term follow-up to identify whether patients follow through on decisions and whether any increased distress is transient. Innovative, streamlined resources are needed to scale up delivery of genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer in mainstream oncology clinics. Tailored patient-facing decision aids should also be made available to patients identified as carriers of a pathogenic gene variant that increases future cancer risks, to complement traditional genetic counselling.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020220460, identifier: CRD42020220460.

Genetics Adviser: a protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial evaluating a digital platform for genetics service delivery

INTRODUCTION

The high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System (REB#20-035). Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04725565.

Understanding the Information Needs of Patients With Ovarian Cancer Regarding Genetic Testing to Inform Intervention Design: Interview Study

Background

Experts in gynecological cancer care recommend that all patients with invasive or high-grade ovarian cancer (OC) undergo genetic testing. However, even patients who intend to take or have taken genetic tests have many unaddressed information needs regarding genetic testing. Existing genetic counseling falls short of adequately addressing this challenge.

Objective

This study aims to investigate the genetic testing–related information needs of patients with OC to inform the design of interactive technology-based interventions that can enhance communication of genetic testing information to patients.

Methods

We interviewed 20 patients with OC who had taken genetic tests and gathered genetic testing–related messages from an active OC web-based community. The interview transcripts and web-based community messages were analyzed using the qualitative content analysis method.

Results

Data analyses produced a comprehensive taxonomy of the genetic testing–related information needs of patients with OC, which included five major topic clusters: knowledge of genetic testing as a medical test, genetic testing process, genetic testing implications for patients, implications for family members, and medical terminology. Findings indicated that patients wanted to receive information that was relevant, understandable, concise, usable, appropriate, sympathetic, and available when needed. They also preferred various channels to receive information, including internet-based technologies, print, and conversations with health care providers.

Conclusions

Patients with OC need a range of information to address the uncertainties and challenges that they encounter while taking genetic tests. Their preferences for channels to receive information vary widely. A multichannel information delivery solution that combines both provider-led and peer-to-peer education models is needed to supplement existing genetic counseling to effectively meet the genetic testing–related information needs of patients with OC.

The Prevent Ovarian Cancer Program (POCP): Identification of women at risk for ovarian cancer using complementary recruitment approaches

BACKGROUND

Up to 20% of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (HGSOC) are hereditary; however, historical uptake of genetic testing is low. We used a unique combination of approaches to identify women in Ontario, Canada, with a first-degree relative (FDR) who died from HGSOC without prior genetic testing, and offer them multi-gene panel testing.

METHODS

From May 2015-Sept 2019, genetic counseling and testing was provided to eligible participants. Two recruitment strategies were employed, including self-identification in response to an outreach campaign and direct targeting of FDRs of deceased HGSOC patients treated at our institution. The rate of pathogenic variants (PV) in established/potential ovarian cancer risk genes and the benefits/challenges of each approach were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 564 women enrolled in response to our outreach campaign (n = 473) or direct recruitment (n = 91). Mean age at consent was 52 years and 96% did not meet provincial testing criteria. Genetic results were provided to 528 individuals from 458 families. The rate of PVs in ovarian cancer risk genes was highest when FDRs were diagnosed with HGSOC <60 years (9.4% vs. 3.9% ≥ 60y, p = 0.0160). Participants in the outreach vs. direct recruitment cohort had a similar rate of PVs; however, uptake of genetic testing (97% vs. 89%; p = 0.0036) and study completion (95% vs. 87%; p = 0.0062) rates were higher in the former. Eleven participants with pathogenic variants have completed risk-reducing gynecologic surgery, with one stage I HGSOC and two breast cancers identified.

CONCLUSION

Overall PV rates in this large cohort were lower than expected; however, we provide evidence that genetic testing criteria in Ontario should include individuals with a deceased FDR diagnosed with HGSOC <60 years of age.

Risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes-Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) are a communication process to inform and prepare patients for genetic test results and the related medical management. An increasing number of healthcare providers are active in the delivery of cancer risk assessment and testing, which can have enormous benefits for enhanced patient care. However, genetics professionals remain key in the multidisciplinary care of at-risk patients and their families, given their training in facilitating patients' understanding of the role of genetics in cancer development, the potential psychological, social, and medical implications associated with cancer risk assessment and genetic testing. A collaborative partnership of non-genetics and genetics experts is the ideal approach to address the growing number of patients at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The goal of this practice resource is to provide allied health professionals an understanding of the key components of risk assessment for HBOC as well as the use of risk models and published guidelines for medical management. We also highlight what patient types are appropriate for genetic testing, what are the most appropriate test(s) to consider, and when to refer individuals to a genetics professional. This practice resource is intended to serve as a resource for allied health professionals in determining their approach to delivering comprehensive care for families and individuals facing HBOC. The cancer risk and prevalence figures in this document are based on cisgender women and men; the risks for transgender or non-binary individuals have not been studied and therefore remain poorly understood.

The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review

As genetics becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of health care and the use of complex genetic tests continues to grow, the clinical genetics workforce will likely face greatly increased demand for its services. To inform strategic planning by health-care systems to prepare to meet this future demand, we performed a scoping review of the genetics workforce in high-income countries, summarizing all available evidence on its composition and capacity published between 2010 and 2019. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PAIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources were searched, resulting in 162 unique studies being included in the review. The evidence presented includes the composition and size of the workforce, the scope of practice for genetics and nongenetics specialists, the time required to perform genetics-related tasks, case loads of genetics providers, and opportunities to increase efficiency and capacity. Our results indicate that there is currently a shortage of genetics providers and that there is a lack of consensus about the appropriate boundaries between the scopes of practice for genetics and nongenetics providers. Moreover, the results point to strategies that may be used to increase productivity and efficiency, including alternative service delivery models, streamlining processes, and the automation of tasks.

Cancer Genetic Counseling-Current Practice and Future Challenges

Cancer genetic counseling practice is rapidly evolving, with services being provided in increasingly novel ways. Pretest counseling for cancer patients may be abbreviated from traditional models to cover the elements of informed consent in the broadest of strokes. Genetic testing may be ordered by a cancer genetics professional, oncology provider, or primary care provider. Increasingly, direct-to-consumer testing options are available and utilized by consumers anxious to take control of their genetic health. Finally, genetic information is being used to inform oncology care, from surgical decision-making to selection of chemotherapeutic agent. This review provides an overview of the current and evolving practice of cancer genetic counseling as well as opportunities and challenges for a wide variety of indications in both the adult and pediatric setting.

Health Care Provider Perceptions of Caring for Individuals with Inherited Pancreatic Cancer Risk

Recent national guidelines recommend genetic risk assessment for all patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, yet individuals with pancreatic cancer obtain genetic testing at suboptimal rates. Both patient and provider factors play a role in adherence to genetic testing recommendations. The purpose of this study was to understand health care provider perspectives of caring for patients with inherited pancreatic cancer risk. The study was a cross-sectional mixed method study utilizing a qualitative interview and a survey. The study sample included health care providers who provide care for patients with pancreatic cancer or inherited risk. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis, while quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Thirty participants had complete interview data and 29 completed a survey. The sample was comprised of physicians (n = 17), genetic counselors (n = 6), nurses (n = 3), and social workers (n = 3). Respondents were less confident in their ability to identify patients with inherited pancreatic cancer risk compared with other hereditary cancer syndromes. Several challenges were identified including the pancreatic cancer illness trajectory; lack of evidence-based practice guidelines; difficulty interpreting genetic test results; and difficulty following up on referrals. Participants perceived a lack of educational resources for patients with inherited pancreatic cancer risk. Health care providers who care for individuals with inherited pancreatic cancer risk face challenges that are distinct from those encountered during the care of individuals for other hereditary cancers. There is a need for additional resources at the patient-, provider-, and system-level.