Care delivery considerations for widespread and equitable implementation of inherited cancer predisposition testing

How far is too far? Cancer prevention and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved patient populations

Despite dedicated efforts to improve equitable access to cancer care in the United States, disparities in cancer outcomes persist, and geographically underserved patients remain at an increased risk of cancer with lower rates of survival. The critical evaluation of cancer prevention inequities and clinical trial access presents the opportunity to outline novel strategies to incrementally improve bookended access to gynecologic cancer care for geographically underserved patients. Cancer prevention strategies that can be addressed in the rural patient population mirror priorities in the Healthy People 2030 objectives and include increased identification of high risk individuals who may benefit from increased cancer screening and risk reduction, increasing the proportion of people who discuss interventions to prevent cancer, such as HPV vaccination, with their provider, and increasing the proportion of adults who complete evidence based cancer screening. Barriers to accrual to clinical trials for rural patients overlap significantly with the same barriers to obtaining health care in general. These barriers include: lack of facilities and specialized providers; lack of robust health infrastructure; inability to travel; and financial barriers. In this review, we will discuss current knowledge and opportunities to improve cancer prevention initiatives and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved populations with a focus on rurality.

Investigation of interest in and timing preference for cancer predisposition testing and expanded carrier screening among women of reproductive age

Objective

To examine cognitive, relational, and social predictors of interest in and timing preference for cancer predisposition testing (CPT) and expanded carrier screening (ECS) offered in routine gynecologic care for women of reproductive age.

Methods

Women between 20 and 35 years old who were currently pregnant or had a prior pregnancy (N = 351) completed an online survey. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were used to identify significant predictors of women's interest in and timing preference for CPT and ECS.

Results

Most respondents reported high interest in CPT and ECS and preferred to have them when planning for a pregnancy. Perceived importance of genetic information and negative attitude towards uncertainty predicted interest in CPT and ECS in multivariable models. Genetic knowledge predicted preference for CPT or ECS when planning for a pregnancy.

Conclusion

Educational and decision support tools should be developed to enhance women's knowledge and awareness of CPT and ECS and to provide them with strategies to manage uncertainty.

Innovation

We examined women's timing preference for CPT and ECS and the impact of partner support and trust with gynecologist. A context-specific attitudes toward uncertainty scale was used to investigate women's particular perceptions of uncertainty in genetic testing.

How the other half screens: A model for partnerships between student-run free clinics and genetic counseling programs to address disparities in hereditary cancer evaluation

Genetic medicine is considered a major part of the future of preventative care, offering evidence-based, effective interventions to improve health outcomes and reduce morbidity and mortality, especially regarding hereditary cancer screening. Identification of individuals who would benefit from screening is key to improving their cancer-related healthcare outcomes. However, patients without insurance, of historically underserved races, of lower socioeconomic status, and in rural communities have lower access to such care. Barriers to access lead to populations having higher rates of undetected hereditary cancer, and consequently more severe forms of cancer. With an already-established reach, student-run free clinics can work with genetic counseling training programs to incorporate genetic medicine into their workflow. Such partnerships will (1) make genetic care more accessible with goals of improving patient morbidity, mortality, and health outcomes, (2) offer robust educational experiences for genetic counseling learners, particularly in understanding social determinants of health and barriers to care, and (3) actively combat the growing racial and geographic gaps in genetic care. Our study presents how one student-run free clinic implemented genetic counseling into its primary care workflow to improve access to genetics services. We present two examples of how genetic counseling improved patients' medical care. We also identify obstacles encountered during this program's development, as well as solutions-those we incorporated and possible considerations for other clinics. With the hope that other clinics can use this paper to design similar partnerships, we aim to lessen the gap between sickness and screening.

Advancing health equity: A qualitative study assessing barriers and facilitators of implementing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk screening tools in community-based organizations

Genetic counseling and testing (GCT) inform cancer management for persons at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Community-based organizations (CBOs) may play a role in identifying at-risk Latinx individuals to connect them to GCT but data are lacking. Two academic centers and their four CBO partners planned to implement a validated questionnaire for HBOC risk screening ("HBOC risk screening tool"). This study aimed to assess CBO's preferences for HBOC risk screening tools, as well as the barriers and facilitators anticipated for future implementation. Pre-implementation focus groups were conducted with CBO's staff. Discussions centered on current practices to identify and refer at-risk patients. During the discussion, staff were asked to select one out of five validated HBOC risk screening tools to implement and to discuss anticipated barriers/facilitators for implementation. The four focus groups were coded and qualitative analyzed following the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Health Equity domains. All CBOs chose the Family History Screen 7 (FHS-7). Participants (N = 35) highlighted how the FHS-7 was easy to adapt to better fit the target population and changing guidelines. They had positive attitudes toward implementing the screening tool, stressed how the culture of the organization positioned them to reach the target population, and noted barriers in different CFIR domains (e.g., low knowledge about HBOC and GCT referrals; scarce available resources). Participants pointed to barriers related to health equity domains including limited access to GCT and follow-up care for uninsured and underinsured populations, challenges obtaining accurate family history, and immigration-related barriers. CBOs highlighted the importance of partnering with other stakeholders to overcome barriers. Findings emphasize the need to develop multi-level implementation strategies to overcome barriers and leverage facilitators. This study can inform the development of implementation toolkits for CBOs to implement HBOC screening tools to advance health equity.

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.

Clinical genetic counseling and translation considerations for polygenic scores in personalized risk assessments: A Practice Resource from the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Polygenic scores (PGS) are primed for use in personalized risk assessments for common, complex conditions and population health screening. Although there is growing evidence supporting the clinical validity of these scores in certain diseases, presently, there is no consensus on best practices for constructing PGS or demonstrated clinical utility in practice. Despite these evidence gaps, individuals can access their PGS information through commercial entities, research programs, and clinical programs. This prompts the immediate need for educational resources for clinicians encountering PGS information in clinical practice. This practice resource is intended to increase genetic counselors' and other healthcare providers' understanding and comfort with PGS used in personalized risk assessments. Drawing on best practices in clinical genomics, we discuss the unique considerations for polygenic-based (1) testing, (2) clinical genetic counseling, and (3) translation to population health services. This practice resource outlines the emerging uses of PGS, as well as the critical limitations of this technology that need to be addressed before wide-scale implementation.

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.

Genetic counselors' experience with reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket cost for multi-cancer gene panel testing for hereditary cancer syndromes

Multi-cancer gene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (hereditary cancer panels, HCPs) are widely available, and some laboratories have programs that limit patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) cost share. However, little is known about practices by cancer genetic counselors for discussing and ordering an HCP and how insurance reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket share impact these practices. We conducted a survey of cancer genetic counselors based in the United States through the National Society of Genetic Counselors to assess the impact of reimbursement and patient OOP share on ordering of an HCP and hereditary cancer genetic counseling. Data analyses were conducted using chi-square and t tests. We received 135 responses (16% response rate). We found that the vast majority of respondents (94%, 127/135) ordered an HCP for patients rather than single-gene tests to assess hereditary cancer predisposition. Two-thirds of respondents reported that their institution had no protocol related to discussing HCPs with patients. Most respondents (84%, 114/135) indicated clinical indications and patients' requests as important in selecting and ordering HCPs, while 42%, 57/135, considered reimbursement and patient OOP share factors important. We found statistically significant differences in reporting of insurance as a frequently used payment method for HCPs and in-person genetic counseling (84% versus 59%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Perceived patient willingness to pay more than $100 was significantly higher for HCPs than for genetic counseling(41% versus 22%, respectively, p < 0.01). In sum, genetic counselors' widespread selection and ordering of HCPs is driven more by clinical indications and patient preferences than payment considerations. Respondents perceived that testing is more often reimbursed by insurance than genetic counseling, and patients are more willing to pay for an HCP than for genetic counseling. Policy efforts should address this incongruence in reimbursement and patient OOP share. Patient-centered communication should educate patients on the benefit of genetic counseling.

Parents' understanding of genome and exome sequencing for pediatric health conditions: a systematic review

Genome and exome sequencing (GS/ES) are increasingly being used in pediatric contexts. We summarize evidence regarding the actual and perceived understanding of GS/ES of parents of a child offered testing for diagnosis and/or management of a symptomatic health condition. We searched four databases (2008-2021) and identified 1264 unique articles, of which 16 met inclusion criteria. We synthesized data from qualitative and quantitative studies and organized results using Ayuso et al. (2013)'s framework of key elements of information for informed consent to GS/ES. Many of the parents represented had prior experience with genetic testing and accessed a form of genetic counseling. Parents' understanding was varied across the domains evaluated. Parents demonstrated understanding of the various potential direct clinical benefits to their child undergoing GS/ES, including in relation to other genetic tests. We found parents had mixed understanding of the nature of potential secondary findings, and of issues related to data privacy, confidentiality, and usage of sequencing results beyond their child's clinical care. Genetic counseling consultations improved understanding. Our synthesis indicates that ES/GS can be challenging for families to understand and underscores the importance of equipping healthcare professionals to explore parents' understanding of ES/GS and the implications of testing for their child.

Interventions to improve delivery of cancer genetics services in the United States: A scoping review

PURPOSE

Interventions that decrease barriers and improve clinical processes can increase patient access to guideline-recommended cancer genetics services. We sought to identify and describe interventions to improve patient receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services in the United States.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 1, 2000 to February 12, 2020. Eligible articles reported interventions to improve the identification, referral, genetic counseling (GC), and genetic testing (GT) of patients in the United States. We independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full-text articles. Data were synthesized by grouping articles by clinical process.

RESULTS

Of 44 included articles, 17 targeted identification of eligible patients, 14 targeted referral, 15 targeted GC, and 16 targeted GT. Patient identification interventions included universal tumor testing and screening of medical/family history. Referral interventions included medical record system adaptations, standardizing processes, and provider notifications. GC interventions included supplemental patient education, integrated GC within oncology clinics, appointment coordination, and alternative service delivery models. One article directly targeted the GT process by implementing provider-coordinated testing.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified and described interventions to improve US patients' access to and receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services.

Adaptation and early implementation of the PREdiction model for gene mutations (PREMM5™) for lynch syndrome risk assessment in a diverse population

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common inherited cause of colorectal and endometrial cancers. Identifying individuals at risk for LS without personal cancer history requires detailed collection and assessment of family health history. However, barriers exist to family health history collection, especially in historically underserved populations. To improve LS risk assessment in historically underserved populations, we adapted the provider-facing PREdiction Model for gene Mutations (PREMM5™ model), a validated LS risk assessment model, into a patient-facing electronic application through an iterative development process involving expert and patient stakeholders. We report on preliminary findings based on the first 500 individuals exposed to the adapted application in a primary care population enriched for low-literacy and low-resource patients. Major adaptations to the PREMM5™ provider module included reduction in reading level, addition of interactive literacy aids, incorporation of family history assessment for both maternal and paternal sides of the family, and inclusion of questions about individual relatives or small groups of relatives to reduce cognitive burden. In the first 500 individuals, 90% completed the PREMM5™ independently; of those, 94% did so in 5 min or less (ranged from 0.2 to 48.8 min). The patient-facing application was able to accurately classify 84% of patients as having clinically significant or not clinically significant LS risk. Our preliminary results suggest that in this diverse study population, most participants were able to rapidly, accurately, and independently complete an interactive application collecting family health history assessment that accurately assessed for Lynch syndrome risk.

Redefining precision cancer prevention to promote health equity

Precision cancer prevention as it is currently envisioned is a targeted, molecular-based approach to intercept carcinogenesis before cancer develops or before it becomes untreatable. Unfortunately, due to systemic biases, current precision cancer prevention interventions might not be effective in all populations, especially in minoritized communities. In addition, not all cancer risk is attributable to genetic or even biological factors, but includes social determinants of health (SDH). Here, we propose a broader framework for precision cancer prevention, anchored in optimizing the benefits to harms for all people. We propose that precision cancer prevention considers not only what is being delivered, but also for whom, where, and how, with a goal of achieving cancer prevention health equity.

An overview of genetic services delivery for hereditary breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women worldwide, with approximately 5-10% of cases attributed to high penetrance hereditary breast cancer (HBC) genes. The tremendous advances in precision oncology have broadened indications for germline genetic testing to guide both systemic and surgical treatment, with increasing demand for cancer genetic services. The HBC continuum of care includes (1) identification, access, and uptake of genetic counseling and testing; (2) the delivery of genetic counseling and testing services; and (3) initiation of guideline-adherent follow-up care and family communication of results. Challenges to delivering care on the HBC care continuum include factors such as access to services, cost, discrimination and bias, and lack of education and awareness, which can be mitigated through implementing a multi-level approach. This includes strategies such as increasing awareness and utilization of genetic counseling and testing, developing new methods to meet the growing demand for genetic services, and improving the uptake of follow-up care by increasing patient and provider awareness of the management recommendations.

IMProving care After inherited Cancer Testing (IMPACT) study: protocol of a randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of two interventions designed to improve cancer risk management and family communication of genetic test results

BACKGROUND

Implementing genetic testing for inherited cancer predisposition into routine clinical care offers a tremendous opportunity for cancer prevention and early detection. However, genetic testing itself does not improve outcomes; rather, outcomes depend on implemented follow-up care. The IMPACT study is a hybrid type I randomized effectiveness-implementation trial to simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of two interventions for individuals with inherited cancer predisposition focused on: 1) increasing family communication (FC) of genetic test results; and 2) improving engagement with guideline-based cancer risk management (CRM).

METHODS

This prospective study will recruit a racially, geographically, and socioeconomically diverse population of individuals with a documented pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in an inherited cancer gene. Eligible participants will be asked to complete an initial trial survey and randomly assigned to one of three arms: A) GeneSHARE, a website designed to increase FC of genetic test results; B) My Gene Counsel's Living Lab Report, a digital tool designed to improve understanding of genetic test results and next steps, including CRM guidelines; or C) a control arm in which participants continue receiving standard care. Follow-up surveys will be conducted at 1, 3, and 12 months following randomization. These surveys include single-item measures, scales, and indices related to: 1) FC and CRM behaviors and behavioral factors following the COM-B theoretical framework (i.e., capability, opportunity, and motivation); 2) implementation outcomes (i.e., acceptability, appropriateness, exposure, and reach); and 3) other contextual factors (i.e., sociodemographic and clinical factors, and uncertainty, distress, and positive aspects of genetic test results). The primary outcomes are an increase in FC of genetic test results (Arm A) and improved engagement with guideline-based CRM without overtreatment or undertreatment (Arm B) by the 12-month follow-up survey.

DISCUSSION

Our interventions are designed to shift the paradigm by which individuals with P/LP variants in inherited cancer genes are provided with information to enhance FC of genetic test results and engagement with guideline-based CRM. The information gathered through evaluating the effectiveness and implementation of these real-world approaches is needed to modify and scale up adaptive, stepped interventions that have the potential to maximize FC and CRM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04763915, date registered: February 21, 2021).

PROTOCOL VERSION

September 17th, 2021 Amendment Number 04.

Racial and ethnic disparities in diagnostic efficacy of comprehensive genetic testing for sensorineural hearing loss

Understanding racial and ethnic disparities in diagnostic rates of genetic testing is critical for health equity. We sought to understand the extent and cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diagnostic efficacy of comprehensive genetic testing (CGT) for sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). We performed a retrospective cohort study at two tertiary children’s hospitals on a diverse cohort of 240 consecutive pediatric patients (76% publicly insured, 82% non-White) with SNHL of unknown etiology who underwent CGT. Definite and possible genetic diagnoses were assigned for each patient, representing the likelihood of a genetic cause of hearing loss. Associations between diagnostic rates were examined. 3.8 ± 2.1 variants were detected per patient; this frequency did not vary between White/Asian and Hispanic/Black cohorts. Overall, 82% of variants were variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Compared with White and Asian subjects, variants identified among Hispanic and Black children were less likely to be classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic (15% vs. 24%, p < 0.001), and Hispanic and Black children were less likely to have a definite genetic diagnosis (10% vs. 37%, p < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio for definite genetic diagnosis in Black and Hispanic children compared with White and Asian children was 0.19. Expanding genetic diagnostic criteria to include predicted deleterious VUSs reduced these disparities between White/Asian and Hispanic/Black children, with comparable molecular diagnostic rates (41% vs. 38%, p = 0.72). However, in silico predictions are insufficiently valid for clinical use. Increased inclusion of underrepresented groups in genetic hearing-loss studies to clinically validate these variants is necessary to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in diagnostic efficacy of comprehensive genetic testing.

Creating accessible Spanish language materials for Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium genomic projects: challenges and lessons learned

Aim: To increase Spanish speakers' representation in genomics research, accessible study materials on genetic topics must be made available in Spanish. Materials & methods: The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium is evaluating genome sequencing for underserved populations. All sites needed Spanish translation of recruitment materials, surveys and return of results. Results: We describe our process for translating site-specific materials, as well as shared measures across sites, to inform future efforts to engage Spanish speakers in research. Conclusion: In translating and adapting study materials for roughly 1000 Spanish speakers across the USA, and harmonizing translated measures across diverse sites, we overcame numerous challenges. Translation should be performed by professionals. Studies must allocate sufficient time, effort and budget to translate and adapt participant materials.

Mutational profile of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer - Establishing genetic testing guidelines in a developing country

PURPOSE

Because many countries lack the capacity to follow the international guidelines for genetic testing, we suggest the specific approach for establishing local genetic testing guidelines that could be applied in developing countries. We focus on hereditary breast (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) in Serbia.

METHODS

From the cohort of 550 persons who were referred for genetic counseling at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, 392 were selected. Personal and family histories were collected and germline DNA was sequenced with NGS in a panel of 20 genes.

RESULTS

Pathogenic (PV) and likely-pathogenic variants (LPV) were detected in 8 genes with the frequency of 23.7%. The most frequent were in BRCA1(7.6%), BRCA2(4.8%), PALB2(4.1%) and CHEK2(3.8%). They were also detected in ATM(1.8%), NBN(0.8%), TP53(0.5%) and RAD51C(0.3%). Whereas high carrier probability (CP), bilateral BC, BC and OC in the same patient and family history (FH) of BC/OC, were the strongest predictors for BRCA1/2 PV/LPV, lower CP values and early age of BC onset without FH were associated with higher frequency of PALB2 and CHEK2 PV/LPV.

CONCLUSIONS

Population specific studies to identify specific mutational patterns and predictors of PV/LPV should be conducted in order to make scientifically sound and cost-effective guidelines for genetic testing in developing countries.

Development and early implementation of an Accessible, Relational, Inclusive and Actionable approach to genetic counseling: The ARIA model

OBJECTIVE

To describe the training and early implementation of the ARIA model of genetic counseling (Accessible, Relational, Inclusive, Actionable).

METHODS

As part of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, an interdisciplinary workgroup developed the ARIA curriculum and trained genetic counselors to return exome sequencing results using the ARIA model.

CURRICULUM

The ARIA curriculum includes didactic elements, discussion, readings, role plays, and observations of usual care genetic counseling sessions. The ARIA model provides the skills and strategies needed for genetic counseling to be accessible to all patients, regardless of prior knowledge or literacy level; involves appropriate psychological and social counseling without overwhelming the patient with information; and leaves the patient with clear and actionable next steps.

CONCLUSION

With sufficient training and practice, the ARIA model appears to be feasible, with promise for ensuring that genetic counselors' communication is accessible, relational, inclusive and actionable for the diverse patients participating in genomic medicine.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

ARIA offers a coherent set of principles and strategies for effective communication with patients of all literacy levels and outlines specific techniques to practice and incorporate these skills into routine practice. The ARIA model could be integrated into genetic counseling training programs and practice, making genetic counseling more accessible and meaningful for all patients.

Expanding the search for germline pathogenic variants for breast cancer. How far should we go and how high should we jump? The missed opportunity!

Since the identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes 3 decades ago, genetic testing and genetic counseling have become an integral part of routine clinical practice. The risk of breast cancer among carriers of germline pathogenic variants, like BRCA1 and BRCA2, is well established. Risk-reducing interventions, including bilateral mastectomies and salpingo-oophorectomies are both effective and have become more acceptable. Many researchers and professional societies view current guidelines as restrictive and may miss many at-risk women, and are calling to expand testing to include all patients with breast cancer, regardless of their personal or family history of cancer, while others are calling for wider adoption to even include all healthy women at age 30 or older. This review will address expanding testing in two directions; horizontally to include more patients, and even healthy women, and vertically to include more genes using next-generation sequencing-based multi-gene panel testing.

Update on multi-gene panel testing and communication of genetic test results

With technological advances, multi-gene panel testing has become increasingly used to identify patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer (HBC). There are currently evidence-based interventions and breast cancer screening strategies that exist for cancer prevention and early detection among patients with HBC. Moreover, in addition to the personal impact of identifying HBC, this information may be shared with at-risk family members to amplify the benefits of testing and subsequent care among those at high risk. Opportunities and challenges with the utilization of updated multi-gene panel testing for HBC, including: (a) tumor sequencing with germline consequences; (b) genetic counseling implications; and (c) strategies to improve the communication of genetic test results to family members will be reviewed. With the advances and expansion of genetic testing, all health care providers need to be updated on both the importance and complexities of HBC counseling and testing, in order to optimize patient care.

Ancestry-specific hereditary cancer panel yields: Moving toward more personalized risk assessment

Healthcare disparities in genomic medicine are well described. Despite some improvements, we continue to see fewer individuals of African American, Asian, and Hispanic ancestry undergo genetic counseling and testing compared to those of European ancestry. It is well established that variant of uncertain significance (VUS) rates are higher among non-European ancestral groups undergoing multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing. However, pathogenic variant (PV) yields, and genomic data in general, are often reported in aggregate and derived from cohorts largely comprised of individuals of European ancestry. We performed a retrospective review of clinical and ancestral data for individuals undergoing multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing to determine ancestry-specific PV and VUS rates. An ancestry other than European was reported in 29,042/104,851 (27.7%) of individuals. Compared to Europeans (9.4%), individuals of Middle Eastern ancestry were more likely to test positive for one or more pathogenic variants (12.1%, p = .0025), while African Americans were less likely (7.9%, p < .0001). Asian and Middle Eastern individuals were most likely (34.8% and 33.2%, respectively) to receive a report with an overall classification of VUS, while individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish and European ancestry were least likely (17.1% and 20.4%, respectively). These data suggest that in addition to higher VUS rates, there may be ancestry-specific PV yields. Providing aggregate data derived from cohorts saturated with European individuals does not adequately reflect genetic testing outcomes in minority groups, and interrogation of ancestry-specific data is a step toward a more personalized risk assessment.

Multi gene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer - is it ready to be used?

Breast cancer is one of the most common malignancies and the leading cause of death among women worldwide. About 20% of breast cancers are hereditary. Approximately 30% of the mutations have remained negative after testing BRCA1/2 even in families with a Mendelian inheritance pattern for breast cancer. Additional non-BRCA genes have been identified as predisposing for breast cancer. Multi gene panel testing tries to cover and explain the BRCA negative inherited breast cancer, improving efficiency, speed and costs of the breast cancer screening. We identified 23 studies reporting results from individuals who have undergone multi gene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer and noticed a prevalence of 1-12% of non-BRCA genes, but also a high level of variants of uncertain significance. A result with a high level of variants of uncertain significance is likely to be more costly than bring benefits, as well as increase the anxiety for patients. Regarding further development of multi gene panel testing, more research is required to establish both the optimal care of patients with cancer (specific treatments like PARP inhibitors) and the management of unaffected individuals (chemoprevention and/or prophylactic surgeries). Early detection in these patients as well as prophylactic measures will significantly increase the chance of survival. Therefore, multi gene panel testing is not yet ready to be used outside clear guidelines. In conclusion, studies on additional cohorts will be needed to better define the real prevalence, penetrance and the variants of these genes, as well as to describe clear evidence-based guidelines for these patients.

Genetic Testing Across Young Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Breast Cancer Survivors: Facilitators, Barriers, and Awareness of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

AIMS

This study compared facilitators and barriers to genetic testing and determined awareness about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) across young Hispanic and non-Hispanic white (NHW) breast cancer (BC) survivors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women diagnosed with BC of age ≤50 years in 2009-2012 were recruited through the Florida State Cancer Registry to complete a questionnaire.

RESULTS

There were 1182 participants of which 61% (174/285) of Hispanic patients, and 65% (580/897) of NHW patients had BC testing. Among untested participants, the most common barriers were lack of testing recommendation (44% Hispanics, 32% NHW; p = 0.02) and cost-related concerns (41% Hispanics, 40% NHW; p = 0.83). Among tested participants, the top facilitators were as follows: (1) "To benefit my family's future" (70% Hispanic, 68% NHW), (2) "My doctor recommended testing" (60% Hispanic, 54% NHW), and (3) "Minimal cost to me" (59% Hispanic, 72% NHW). Only 27% of tested and 15% of untested women were aware of GINA; misuse of test results was reported as a barrier for only 6.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of genetic testing recommendation are lower among Hispanics, but both groups reported additional barriers. Most are unaware of GINA, yet misuse is not a highly cited barrier. Findings suggest the need to educate providers on the importance of recommending testing to all who meet criteria; increase awareness of newer options for more affordable testing; and bolster facilitators that may increase testing uptake.

Genetic Testing in a Population-Based Sample of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Survivors from the REACH Randomized Trial: Cost Barriers and Moderators of Counseling Mode

Background: This study evaluates predictors of BRCA1/2 testing among breast and ovarian cancer survivors who received genetic counseling as part of a randomized trial and evaluates moderators of counseling mode on testing uptake.Methods: Predictors of BRCA1/2 testing within one year postcounseling were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression in a population-based sample of breast and ovarian cancer survivors at increased hereditary risk randomly assigned to in-person counseling (IPC; n = 379) versus telephone counseling (TC; n = 402). Variables that moderated the association between counseling mode and testing were identified by subgroup analysis.Results: Testing uptake was associated with higher perceived comparative mutation risk [OR = 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.57] in the adjusted analysis. Those without cost barriers had higher testing uptake (OR = 18.73; 95% CI, 7.09-49.46). Psychologic distress and perceived comparative mutation risk moderated the effect of counseling and testing. Uptake between IPC versus TC did not differ at low levels of distress and risk, but differed at high distress (26.3% TC vs. 44.3% IPC) and high perceived comparative risk (33.9% TC vs. 50.5% IPC).Conclusions: Cost concerns are a strong determinant of testing. Differences in testing uptake by counseling mode may depend on precounseling distress and risk perceptions.Impact: Cost concerns may contribute to low testing in population-based samples of at-risk cancer survivors. Precounseling psychosocial characteristics should be considered when offering in-person versus telephone counseling. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(12); 1772-80. ©2017 AACR.