Evolution of Hereditary Breast Cancer Genetic Services: Are Changes Reflected in the Knowledge and Clinical Practices of Florida Providers?

Evaluating attributes of a collaborative model of service delivery for hereditary cancer risk assessment

The purpose of this nonrandomized study was to compare several attributes of hereditary cancer risk assessment using a collaborative model of service delivery. Arm 1 included patients seen in-person by a board-certified genetic counselor (CGC), Arm 2 included high-complexity triaged patients from distant sites who received telegenetics with a CGC, and Arm 3 included low-complexity triaged patients from distant sites who had in-person risk assessment with a locally placed genetic counselor extender (GCE). A total of 152 patients consented and 98 had complete data available for analysis (35 in Arm 1, 33 in Arm 2, and 30 in Arm 3). The three groups were comparable in age, ethnicity, education, employment, and cancer status. There was no significant difference in median wait time or distance traveled to receive care across all three arms. However, if patients in Arms 2 and 3 had to access the CGC in-person, they would have had to travel significantly further (p < 0.0001). The time spent in a session was significantly longer in Arm 3 with a GCE than with a CGC in-person or by telegenetics (p < 0.01). There was no difference in the number of essential elements covered in the appointment, change in cancer worry, or appointment satisfaction across all three arms, although the sample size was small. Employing a collaborative model of service delivery with GCEs and telegenetics is feasible, satisfactory to patients and reduces the distance patients travel to access hereditary cancer genetic services.

Germline BRCA-Mutated HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Overcoming Challenges in Genetic Testing and Clinical Considerations When Using Talazoparib

Genetic testing is essential to the diagnosis and management of patients with breast cancer. For example, women who carry mutations in BRCA1/2 genes have an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer and the presence of these mutations may sensitize the patient to treatment with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Two PARP inhibitors are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with germline BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (olaparib and talazoparib). The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Breast Cancer (Version 2.2023) recommend that all patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) be assessed for the presence of germline BRCA1/2 mutations. However, many women eligible for genetic testing do not receive it. Here, we provide our perspectives on both the importance of genetic testing and the challenges patients and community clinicians may face when trying to access genetic testing. We also present a hypothetical case study involving a female patient with germline BRCA-mutated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative mBC to highlight potential clinical considerations on the use of talazoparib, including the decision to initiate therapy, dosing considerations, potential drug-drug interactions, and managing side effects. This case illustrates the benefits of a multidisciplinary approach to managing patients with mBC and involving the patient in the decision-making process. This patient case is fictional and does not represent events or a response from an actual patient; this fictional case is for educational purposes only.

BRCA1/2 Testing in Massachusetts Among Women With Private Insurance or Medicaid, 2011-2015

PURPOSE

Testing for BRCA1/2 mutations has increased among privately insured women in the United States. However, little is known about testing rates or trends among women with Medicaid. We sought to determine whether BRCA1/2 testing rates differed between women with private insurance compared with women with Medicaid in a state where both insurance types cover the test, and to compare testing trends from 2011 to 2015.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of medical claims from January 2011 through June 2015. We included Massachusetts women aged 18-64 with private insurance or Medicaid and at least 12 months of continuous enrollment. We used multivariable linear regression to examine the association of insurance type, age, and time with testing rates.

RESULTS

Mean monthly BRCA1/2 testing rates were lower among women with Medicaid compared with those with private insurance. Among privately insured women, mean monthly rates rose from 9.3 per 100,000 in 2011 to 18.4 per 100,000 in 2015, while among Medicaid-insured women, rates increased from 3.7 to 14.7. There was no difference in the monthly rate of increase in both groups (P=0.07). In adjusted analyses, rates were lower among Medicaid-insured women (7 fewer tests per month than privately insured women, P<0.001), and differed by age, with women aged 44-54 most likely to receive testing and women 18-34 the least likely.

CONCLUSION

BRCA1/2 testing rates were lower among women insured by Medicaid compared with those with private insurance, though rates increased from 2011 to 2015 among both groups of women at a similar rate.

Factors associated with willingness to provide biospecimens for genetics research among African American cancer survivors

This study evaluated factors associated with willingness to provide biospecimens for cancer genetic research among African American cancer survivors. A total of 200 African American adults diagnosed with breast, colon, and/or prostate cancers completed a self-administered survey. Family history information, beliefs about cancer research, cancer genetics and disparities knowledge, willingness to provide a biospecimen, and demographics were obtained. Chi-square, independent samples t tests, and logistic regression analyses were performed. Overall, 79% of this sample was willing to provide a biospecimen for cancer genetics research. Independent associations of willingness to provide a biospecimen existed among demographics (males (p = 0.041)), those who believed in the importance of genetic causes of cancer (p < 0.001), individuals who believe it is important to participate in genetics research (p < 0.001), and those who indicated they would participate in genetics research to help future generations (p = 0.026). Overall, 12.5-56% of participants demonstrated some level of genetics and cancer disparities. This study identified factors that may be incorporated into future research interventions to engage the African American cancer population in cancer genetics biobanking research.

Genetic Counseling and Testing in a Community Setting: Quality, Access, and Efficiency

There is an increasing need for genetic counseling and testing for individuals diagnosed with cancer, as treatment may be affected by the results. In addition, the identification of individuals before a diagnosis of cancer allows for optimal surveillance and early detection and prevention of cancer. With the recognition that as much as 10% of all cancers are hereditary, there is a growing need to improve access to genetic counseling and genetic testing, both before and at the time of diagnosis. This article focuses on models of identifying at-risk patients, including underserved communities; providing genetic counseling and testing in community practices; using telehealth; and collaborating with nongenetics health care providers and technological solutions to maximize efficiency and access.

Video Education on Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) for Physicians: an Interventional Study

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the gold standard in hereditary cancer risk assessment, screening, and treatment. A minority of physicians follow NCCN guidelines for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. This study assesses the impact of an interventional educational program on HBOC in terms of knowledge. Physicians were sent an invite to join either an intervention survey (web-training offered prior to the knowledge survey) or control survey (web-training offered after the knowledge survey). Sixty-nine physicians in the intervention arm and 67 physicians in the control arm completed the survey. The interventional group regularly answered items correctly at a higher frequency than the control group. For example, 64.71% (n = 44) of physicians in the intervention group knew that multi-gene testing does not have to include only highly penetrant genes compared to 32.84% (n = 22) of the control group (p < 0.01). Similar results were seen with other specific survey items. The current study is important in that it shows web-based education to be a feasible and effective modality for training on hereditary breast cancer. This type of education may be incorporated into CME programs and can be used as a foundation for further studies as well.

Promoting guideline-based cancer genetic risk assessment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in ethnically and geographically diverse cancer survivors: Rationale and design of a 3-arm randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although national guidelines for cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have been available for over two decades, less than half of high-risk women have accessed these services, especially underserved minority and rural populations. Identification of high-risk individuals is crucial for cancer survivors and their families to benefit from biomedical advances in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment.

METHODS

This paper describes community-engaged formative research and the protocol of the ongoing randomized 3-arm controlled Genetic Risk Assessment for Cancer Education and Empowerment (GRACE) trial. Ethnically and geographically diverse breast and ovarian cancer survivors at increased risk for hereditary cancer predisposition who have not had a CGRA are recruited through the three statewide cancer registries. The specific aims are to: 1) compare the effectiveness of a targeted intervention (TP) vs. a tailored counseling and navigation(TCN) intervention vs. usual care (UC) on CGRA utilization at 6 months post-diagnosis (primary outcome); compare the effectiveness of the interventions on genetic counseling uptake at 12 months after removal of cost barriers (secondary outcome); 2) examine potential underlying theoretical mediating and moderating mechanisms; and 3) conduct a cost evaluation to guide dissemination strategies.

DISCUSSION

The ongoing GRACE trial addresses an important translational gap by developing and implementing evidence-based strategies to promote guideline-based care and reduce disparities in CGRA utilization among ethnically and geographically diverse women. If effective, these interventions have the potential to reach a large number of high-risk families and reduce disparities through broad dissemination.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03326713; clinicaltrials.gov.

Uptake of BRCA 1/2 and oncotype DX testing by medical and surgical oncologists

PURPOSE

The diffusion of genomic testing is critical to the success of precision medicine, but there is limited information on oncologists' uptake of genetic technology. We aimed to assess the frequency with which medical oncologists and surgeons order BRCA 1/2 and Oncotype DX testing for breast cancer patients.

METHODS

We surveyed 732 oncologists and surgeons treating breast cancer patients. Physicians were from Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and were listed in the 2010 AMA Masterfile or identified by patients.

RESULTS

80.6% of providers ordered BRCA 1/2 testing at least sometimes and 85.4% ordered Oncotype DX (p = 0.01). More frequent ordering of BRCA 1/2 was associated with more positive attitudes toward genetic innovation (OR 1.14, p = 0.001), a belief that testing was likely to be covered by patients' insurance (OR 2.84, p < 0.001), and more frequent ordering of Oncotype DX testing (OR 8.69, p < 0.001). More frequent use of Oncotype DX was associated with a belief that testing was likely to be covered by insurance (OR 7.33, p < 0.001), as well as with more frequent ordering of BRCA 1/2 testing (OR 9.48, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly one in five providers never or rarely ever ordered BRCA 1/2 testing for their breast cancer patients, and nearly 15% never or rarely ever ordered Oncotype DX. Less frequent ordering of BRCA 1/2 is associated with less frequent use of Oncotype DX testing, and vice versa. Those who do not order BRCA 1/2 testing report less positive attitudes toward genetic innovation. Further education of this subset of providers regarding the benefits of precision medicine may enable more rapid diffusion of genetic technology.

A Research Agenda for Communication Scholars in the Precision Medicine Era

The 2015 announcement of the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) galvanized and energized efforts to reconsider medical practice through tailoring of prevention and treatment recommendations based on genetics, environment, and lifestyle. Numerous disciplines contributed white papers identifying challenges associated with PMI and calling for discipline-specific research that might provide solutions to such challenges. Throughout these white papers, the prominence of communication in achieving the PMI's goals is obviously apparent. In this article, we highlight opportunities for communication scholars' contributions to the PMI based on challenges identified in white papers from other disciplines and work already conducted by research teams in the field of communication.

Primary care providers' cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: A systematic review and research agenda

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) can play a critical role in helping patients receive the preventive health benefits of cancer genetic risk information. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to identify studies of US PCPs' knowledge, attitudes, and communication-related behaviors regarding genetic tests that could inform risk-stratification approaches for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in order to describe current findings and research gaps.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of six electronic databases to identify peer-reviewed empirical articles relating to US PCPs and genetic testing for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer published in English from 2008 to 2016. We reviewed these data and used narrative synthesis methods to integrate findings into a descriptive summary and identify research needs.

RESULTS

We identified 27 relevant articles. Most focused on genetic testing for breast cancer (23/27) and colorectal cancer risk (12/27); only one study examined testing for prostate cancer risk. Most articles addressed descriptive research questions (24/27). Many studies (24/27) documented PCPs' knowledge, often concluding that providers' knowledge was incomplete. Studies commonly (11/27) examined PCPs' attitudes. Across studies, PCPs expressed some concerns about ethical, legal, and social implications of testing. Attitudes about the utility of clinical genetic testing, including for targeted cancer screening, were generally favorable; PCPs were more skeptical of direct-to-consumer testing. Relatively fewer studies (9/27) examined PCPs' communication practices regarding cancer genetic testing.

DISCUSSION

This review indicates a need for investigators to move beyond descriptive research questions related to PCPs' knowledge and attitudes about cancer genetic testing. Research is needed to address important gaps regarding the development, testing, and implementation of innovative interventions and educational programs that can improve PCPs' genetic testing knowledge, assuage concerns about the appropriateness of cancer genetic testing, and promote open and effective patient-provider communication about genetic risk and genetic testing.

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

INTRODUCTION

DNA sequencing advances through next-generation sequencing (NGS) and several practice changing events, have led to shifting paradigms for inherited cancer predisposition testing. These changes necessitated a means by which to maximize health benefits without unnecessarily inflating healthcare costs and exacerbating health disparities. Areas covered: NGS-based tests encompass multi-gene panel tests, whole exome sequencing, and whole genome sequencing, all of which test for multiple genes simultaneously, compared to prior sequencing practices through which testing was performed sequentially for one or two genes. Taking an ecological approach, this article synthesizes the current literature to consider the broad impact of these advances from the individual patient-, interpersonal-, organizational-, community- and policy-levels. Furthermore, the authors describe how multi-level factors that impact genetic testing and follow-up care reveal great potential to widen existing health disparities if these issues are not addressed. Expert commentary: As we consider ways to maximize patient benefit from testing in a cost effective manner, it is important to consider perspectives from multiple levels. This information is needed to guide the development of interventions such that the promise of genomic testing may be realized by all populations, regardless of race, ethnicity and ability to pay.