Family history-taking in community family practice: implications for genetic screening

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of family cancer history collection tools in oncology clinical practices

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of family cancer history (FCH) collection tools in clinical practices and community settings by assessing clinicians' perceptions of implementing a chatbot interface to collect FCH information and provide personalized results to patients and providers.

OBJECTIVES

By identifying design and implementation features that facilitate tool adoption and integration into clinical workflows, this study can inform future FCH tool development and adoption in healthcare settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quantitative data were collected using survey to evaluate the implementation outcomes of acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, and sustainability of the chatbot tool for collecting FCH. Semistructured interviews were conducted to gather qualitative data on respondents' experiences using the tool and recommendations for enhancements.

RESULTS

We completed data collection with 19 providers (n = 9, 47%), clinical staff (n = 5, 26%), administrators (n = 4, 21%), and other staff (n = 1, 5%) affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. FCH was systematically collected using a wide range of tools at sites, with information being inserted into the patient's medical record. Participants found the chatbot tool to be highly acceptable, with the tool aligning with existing workflows, and were open to adopting the tool into their practice.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We further the evidence base about the appropriateness of scripted chatbots to support FCH collection. Although the tool had strong support, the varying clinical workflows across clinic sites necessitate that future FCH tool development accommodates customizable implementation strategies. Implementation support is necessary to overcome technical and logistical barriers to enhance the uptake of FCH tools in clinical practices and community settings.

The value of parental medical records for the prediction of diabetes and cardiovascular disease: a novel method for generating and incorporating family histories

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether data-driven family histories (DDFH) derived from linked EHRs of patients and their parents can improve prediction of patients' 10-year risk of diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using data from Israel's largest healthcare organization. A random sample of 200 000 subjects aged 40-60 years on the index date (January 1, 2010) was included. Subjects with insufficient history (<1 year) or insufficient follow-up (<10 years) were excluded. Two separate XGBoost models were developed-1 for diabetes and 1 for ASCVD-to predict the 10-year risk for each outcome based on data available prior to the index date of January 1, 2010.

RESULTS

Overall, the study included 110 734 subject-father-mother triplets. There were 22 153 cases of diabetes (20%) and 11 715 cases of ASCVD (10.6%). The addition of parental information significantly improved prediction of diabetes risk (P < .001), but not ASCVD risk. For both outcomes, maternal medical history was more predictive than paternal medical history. A binary variable summarizing parental disease state delivered similar predictive results to the full parental EHR.

DISCUSSION

The increasing availability of EHRs for multiple family generations makes DDFH possible and can assist in delivering more personalized and precise medicine to patients. Consent frameworks must be established to enable sharing of information across generations, and the results suggest that sharing the full records may not be necessary.

CONCLUSION

DDFH can address limitations of patient self-reported family history, and it improves clinical predictions for some conditions, but not for all, and particularly among younger adults.

Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 1% of individuals have a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, however, the majority are not aware. Collecting a cancer family history (CFH) can triage patients to receive genetic testing. To rigorously assess different methods of CFH collection, we compared a web-based tool (WBT) to usual care (clinician collects CFH) in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

New gynecologic oncology patients (seen 9/2019-9/2021) were randomized to one of three arms in a 2:2:1 allocation ratio: 1) usual care clinician CFH collection, 2) WBT completed at home, or 3) WBT completed in office. The WBT generated a cancer-focused pedigree and scores on eight validated cancer risk models. The primary outcome was collection of an adequate CFH (based on established guidelines) with usual care versus the WBT.

RESULTS

We enrolled 250 participants (usual care - 110; WBT home - 105; WBT office - 35 [closed early due to COVID-19]). Within WBT arms, 109 (78%) participants completed the tool, with higher completion for office versus home (33 [94%] vs. 76 [72%], P = 0.008). Among participants completing the WBT, 63 (58%) had an adequate CFH versus 5 (5%) for usual care (P < 0.001). Participants completing the WBT were significantly more likely to complete genetic counseling (34 [31%] vs. 15 [14%], P = 0.002) and genetic testing (20 [18%] vs. 9 [8%], P = 0.029). Participant and provider WBT experience was favorable.

CONCLUSIONS

WBTs for CFH collection are a promising application of health information technology, resulting in more comprehensive CFH and a significantly greater percentage of participants completing genetic counseling and testing.

Missed opportunities in the real-world genetic testing in BRCA gene variant carriers with cancers meeting NCCN criteria

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of patients meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)'s BRCA genetic testing criteria prior to a diagnosis of a BRCA-related cancer.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of patients with BRCA pathogenic variants and a diagnosis of a BRCA-related cancer. Patients were included if they had known dates of genetic testing and cancer diagnosis. NCCN criteria (version 2.2021) were applied to determine if patients met criteria for testing before a BRCA-related cancer diagnosis. The outcome of interest was the proportion of patients undergoing genetic testing following a diagnosis of a BRCA-related cancer who qualified for genetic testing based on NCCN criteria. Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression were performed with significance at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of 270 patients with a BRCA-related cancer, 229 (85%) underwent genetic testing after a cancer diagnosis. Most patients (97%) met at least one NCCN criteria for BRCA testing; 166 (73%) of patients who were tested following a BRCA-related cancer diagnosis also met the criteria for testing by family history. Publicly insured or uninsured patients were three times more likely to undergo BRCA testing after a diagnosis of cancer (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-8.40). Patients with a family history of pathogenic variants were more likely to undergo testing before a cancer diagnosis (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05-0.23).

CONCLUSION

Most patients with BRCA-associated cancers undergo genetic testing after their cancer diagnosis. Increased education on genetic testing criteria and novel methods to improve testing are desperately needed.

Barriers to family history collection among Spanish-speaking primary care patients: a BRIDGE qualitative study

Objectives

Family history is an important tool for assessing disease risk, and tailoring recommendations for screening and genetic services referral. This study explored barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients.

Methods

This qualitative study was conducted in two US healthcare systems. We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical assistants, physicians, and interpreters with experience collecting family history for Spanish-speaking patients.

Results

The most common patient-level barrier was the perception that some Spanish-speaking patients had limited knowledge of family history. Interpersonal communication barriers related to dialectical differences and decisions about using formal interpreters vs. Spanish-speaking staff. Organizational barriers included time pressures related to using interpreters, and ad hoc workflow adaptations for Spanish-speaking patients that might leave gaps in family history collection.

Conclusions

This study identified multi-level barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients in primary care. Findings suggest that a key priority to enhance communication would be to standardize processes for working with interpreters.

Innovation

To improve communication with and care provided to Spanish-speaking patients, there is a need to increase healthcare provider awareness about implicit bias, to address ad hoc workflow adjustments within practice settings, to evaluate the need for professional interpreter services, and to improve digital tools to facilitate family history collection.

Association of Disparities in Family History and Family Cancer History in the Electronic Health Record With Sex, Race, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, and Language Preference in 2 Large US Health Care Systems

IMPORTANCE

Clinical decision support (CDS) algorithms are increasingly being implemented in health care systems to identify patients for specialty care. However, systematic differences in missingness of electronic health record (EHR) data may lead to disparities in identification by CDS algorithms.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the availability and comprehensiveness of cancer family history information (FHI) in patients' EHRs by sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and language preference in 2 large health care systems in 2021.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective EHR quality improvement study used EHR data from 2 health care systems: University of Utah Health (UHealth) and NYU Langone Health (NYULH). Participants included patients aged 25 to 60 years who had a primary care appointment in the previous 3 years. Data were collected or abstracted from the EHR from December 10, 2020, to October 31, 2021, and analyzed from June 15 to October 31, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Prior collection of cancer FHI in primary care settings.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Availability was defined as having any FHI and any cancer FHI in the EHR and was examined at the patient level. Comprehensiveness was defined as whether a cancer family history observation in the EHR specified the type of cancer diagnosed in a family member, the relationship of the family member to the patient, and the age at onset for the family member and was examined at the observation level.

RESULTS

Among 144 484 patients in the UHealth system, 53.6% were women; 74.4% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino and 67.6% were White; and 83.0% had an English language preference. Among 377 621 patients in the NYULH system, 55.3% were women; 63.2% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino, and 55.3% were White; and 89.9% had an English language preference. Patients from historically medically undeserved groups-specifically, Black vs White patients (UHealth: 17.3% [95% CI, 16.1%-18.6%] vs 42.8% [95% CI, 42.5%-43.1%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.0%-24.8%] vs 33.8% [95% CI, 33.6%-34.0%]), Hispanic or Latino vs non-Hispanic or non-Latino patients (UHealth: 27.2% [95% CI, 26.5%-27.8%] vs 40.2% [95% CI, 39.9%-40.5%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.1%-24.7%] vs 31.6% [95% CI, 31.4%-31.8%]), Spanish-speaking vs English-speaking patients (UHealth: 18.4% [95% CI, 17.2%-19.1%] vs 40.0% [95% CI, 39.7%-40.3%]; NYULH: 15.1% [95% CI, 14.6%-15.6%] vs 31.1% [95% CI, 30.9%-31.2%), and men vs women (UHealth: 30.8% [95% CI, 30.4%-31.2%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 42.6%-43.3%]; NYULH: 23.1% [95% CI, 22.9%-23.3%] vs 34.9% [95% CI, 34.7%-35.1%])-had significantly lower availability and comprehensiveness of cancer FHI (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that systematic differences in the availability and comprehensiveness of FHI in the EHR may introduce informative presence bias as inputs to CDS algorithms. The observed differences may also exacerbate disparities for medically underserved groups. System-, clinician-, and patient-level efforts are needed to improve the collection of FHI.

Factors That Foster Therapeutic Alliance in Pediatric Sports and Orthopedics: A Systematic Review

Therapeutic alliance has been defined as building rapport between provider and patient in order to enhance patient motivation to improve outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify factors that patients look for that help build a strong therapeutic alliance in their pediatric sports or orthopedics healthcare provider, to identify if these factors differ across healthcare professions, and to identify any differences in therapeutic alliance between patients and their provider regarding in-person and telehealth visits. Scientific databases were searched from inception until August 2022. The search strategy resulted in 2195 articles with 11 studies included in the final analysis. The main attributes adolescents look for in their pediatric sports healthcare provider were shared decision making and understanding patients' sports and goals. These factors were found to differ among parents, sex, race, and socioeconomic status. The top factors improving therapeutic alliance in telehealth were having an already established relationship with the provider, visits lasting longer than 30 min, and having an English-speaking provider for English-speaking patients. The available literature highlights factors that contribute to the development of a stronger therapeutic alliance in the pediatric sports and orthopedics population. As these factors differ among adolescents, parents, sex, race, and socioeconomic status, this review provides insight in what patients and families look for in their provider when seeking care.

Considerations in Methods and Timing for Delivery of Genetic Counseling Information to Pediatric Oncology Patients and Families

Many pediatric oncology patients and their families may benefit from genetic counseling and testing; however, identifying the best timing and delivery method for these referrals is sometimes a challenge. The goal of this study was to understand how and when caregivers prefer to receive information about genetic counseling and testing. A total of 56 surveys completed by caregivers at The Johns Hopkins Hospital Pediatric Oncology unit in Baltimore, Maryland were analyzed. A sizeable subset of respondents was interested in receiving information about the availability of genetic counseling from an oncology doctor or nurse, but not a genetic counselor (n=13/55, 24%). Most respondents preferred to be informed about genetic services at diagnosis (n=28/54, 52%) or within 1 to 2 months of diagnosis (n=14/54, 26%). In conclusion, patients and their families may benefit from prompt and early recognition of the risk of cancer predisposition syndromes, preferably within the first 2 months following diagnosis. Oncology professionals are an important source of information, and can introduce the availability of genetic counseling services and motivate families to undergo genetic testing, though alternative communication methods such as brochures may also be useful.

Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review

Background

Many medical family history (FH) tools are available for various settings. Although FH tools can be a powerful health screening tool in primary care (PC), they are currently underused.

Objectives

This review explores the FH tools currently available for PC and evaluates their clinical performance.

Methods

Five databases were systematically searched until May 2021. Identified tools were evaluated on the following criteria: time-to-complete, integration with electronic health record (EMR) systems, patient administration, risk-assessment ability, evidence-based management recommendations, analytical and clinical validity and clinical utility.

Results

We identified 26 PC FH tools. Analytical and clinical validity was poorly reported and agreement between FH and gold standard was commonly inadequately reported and assessed. Sensitivity was acceptable; specificity was found in half of the reviewed tools to be poor. Most reviewed tools showed a capacity to successfully identify individuals with increased risk of disease (6.2–84.6% of high and/or moderate or increased risk individuals).

Conclusion

Despite the potential of FH tools to improve risk stratification of patients in PC, clinical performance of current tools remains limited as well as their integration in EMR systems. Twenty-one FH tools are designed to be self-administered by patients.

Experience and Perceptions of a Family Health History Risk Assessment Tool among Multi-Ethnic Asian Breast Cancer Patients

A family health history-based risk assessment is particularly valuable for guiding cancer screening and treatment strategies, yet an optimal implementation depends upon end-users' values and needs. This is not only true prior to disease development, but also for those already affected. The aim of this study is to explore perceptions of the value of knowing one's family health history (FHH)-based risk, experience using a patient-facing FHH tool and the potential of the tool for wider implementation. Twenty multi-ethnic Asian patients undergoing breast cancer treatment in Singapore completed an FHH-based risk assessment. Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted and data were thematically analyzed. All participants were female and slightly more than half were Chinese. The acceptance and usage of an FHH risk assessment tool for cancers and its broader implementation was affected by a perceived importance of personal control over early detection, patient concerns of anxiety for themselves and their families due to risk results, concerns for genetic discrimination, adequacy of follow-up care plans and Asian cultural beliefs toward disease and dying. This study uniquely sheds light on the factors affecting Asian breast cancer patients' perceptions about undergoing an FHH-based risk assessment, which should inform steps for a broader implementation in Asian healthcare systems.

Improving Detection of Cancer Predisposition Syndromes in Pediatric Oncology

Implementation and adherence to consensus statement criteria for referral of pediatric cancer patients for genetic evaluation are critical to identify the 5% to 10% with a genetic cancer predisposition syndrome. The authors implemented a Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement initiative aimed at increasing referrals of at-risk patients. Retrospective chart review was followed by educational intervention-with impact assessed over a 9-month prospective chart review. Referral rate improved >2-fold and there was an improvement in documented oncologic history to at least a third-degree relative. The integration of quality improvement can be an effective tool to improve the referral of patients with an elevated risk for a cancer predisposition syndrome.

Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Advances in genetics and sequencing technologies are enabling the identification of more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility who could benefit from tailored screening and prevention recommendations. While cancer family history information is used in primary care settings to identify unaffected patients who could benefit from a cancer genetics evaluation, this information is underutilized. System-level population health management strategies are needed to assist health care systems in identifying patients who may benefit from genetic services. In addition, because of the limited number of trained genetics specialists and increasing patient volume, the development of innovative and sustainable approaches to delivering cancer genetic services is essential.

METHODS

We are conducting a randomized controlled trial, entitled Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services (BRIDGE), to address these needs. The trial is comparing uptake of genetic counseling, uptake of genetic testing, and patient adherence to management recommendations for automated, patient-directed versus enhanced standard of care cancer genetics services delivery models. An algorithm-based system that utilizes structured cancer family history data available in the electronic health record (EHR) is used to identify unaffected patients who receive primary care at the study sites and meet current guidelines for cancer genetic testing. We are enrolling eligible patients at two healthcare systems (University of Utah Health and New York University Langone Health) through outreach to a randomly selected sample of 2780 eligible patients in the two sites, with 1:1 randomization to the genetic services delivery arms within sites. Study outcomes are assessed through genetics clinic records, EHR, and two follow-up questionnaires at 4 weeks and 12 months after last genetic counseling contactpre-test genetic counseling.

DISCUSSION

BRIDGE is being conducted in two healthcare systems with different clinical structures and patient populations. Innovative aspects of the trial include a randomized comparison of a chatbot-based genetic services delivery model to standard of care, as well as identification of at-risk individuals through a sustainable EHR-based system. The findings from the BRIDGE trial will advance the state of the science in identification of unaffected patients with inherited cancer susceptibility and delivery of genetic services to those patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

BRIDGE is registered as NCT03985852 . The trial was registered on June 6, 2019 at clinicaltrials.gov .

Using Personal Genomic Data within Primary Care: A Bioinformatics Approach to Pharmacogenomics

One application of personalized medicine is the tailoring of medication to the individual, so that the medication will have the highest chance of success. In order to individualize medication, one must have a complete inventory of all current pharmaceutical compounds (a detailed formulary) combined with pharmacogenetic datasets, the genetic makeup of the patient, their (medical) family history and other health-related data. For healthcare professionals to make the best use of this information, it must be visualized in a way that makes the most medically relevant data accessible for their decision-making. Similarly, to enable bioinformatics analysis of these data, it must be prepared and provided through an interface for controlled computational analysis. Due to the high degree of personal information gathered for such initiatives, privacy-sensitive implementation choices and ethical standards are paramount. The Personal Genetic Locker project provides an approach to enable the use of personal genomic data in primary care. In this paper, we provide a description of the Personal Genetic Locker project and show its utility through a use case based on open standards, which is illustrated by the 4MedBox system.

Is family history still underutilised? Exploring the views and experiences of primary care doctors in Malaysia

Family history has long been recognised as a non-invasive and inexpensive tool to identify individuals at risk of genetic conditions. Even in the era of evolving genetic and genomic technology, the role of family history in predicting individual risk for genetic testing and guiding in preventive interventions is still relevant, especially in low-resource countries. The aim of this study was to explore primary care doctors' views and experiences in family history taking and how they utilised family history in day-to-day clinical consultations in Malaysia. Four focus group discussions and six in-depth interviews involving 25 primary care doctors were conducted. Three themes emerged from the analysis: (1) primary care doctors considered family history as an important part of clinical assessment, (2) proactive versus reactive approach in collecting family history and (3) family history collection was variable and challenging. Family history was documented in either free text or pedigree depending on the perception of its appropriateness during the consultation. This study highlighted the need to improve the approach, documentation and the implementation of family history in the Malaysian primary care settings. Integrating family filing concept with built-in clinical decision support into electronic medical records is a potential solution in ensuring effective family history taking in primary care.

Adult adoptees and their use of direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Searching for family, searching for health

Use of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is rapidly growing in the United States. Yet little is known about how specific populations like domestic and intercountry adoptees use DTC-GT. Adoptees often have little to no biological family history, which may affect how they use DTC-GT. This study aimed to examine adult adoptees' motivations to pursue DTC-GT, experiences completing a test, and reasons for not completing one. An online survey consisting of 41 closed-ended questions was distributed to domestic and intercountry adult adoptees in a snowball convenience method addressing seven areas: (a) demographics and adoption experience, (b) family health history, (c) familiarity with DTC-GT, (d) actual DTC-GT experience, (e) hypothetical DTC-GT experience, (f) health results, and (g) satisfaction with DTC-GT. Descriptive statistics were performed on participant demographics and adoption characteristics, and chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests compared demographics and adoption characteristics by familiarity with DTC-GT and completion of DTC-GT. A total of 117 adoptees met criteria and completed the survey. Adoptees were motivated to use DTC-GT to search for biological family (83.0%), verify race and ethnicity (72.3%), and find out where ancestors came from (66.0%). Most participants completed DTC-GT (80.3%); completion was significantly associated with searching for biological relatives (p < 0.01) and with older age (p = 0.05). For those who received health information (59.6%), 44.4% of participants reported talking with a health provider. Adoptees are using DTC-GT to search for biological relatives, confirm their ethnicity and ancestry, and gain information about their health. Genetic counselors and health professionals should be prepared to address DTC-GT with adoptees as nearly half discussed their results with providers; findings from this study provide insight into how this unique population uses DTC-GT, and the possibility of patient-centered, tailored care for adopted patients who do not have family health history.

Impact of family history risk assessment on surgical decisions and imaging surveillance at breast cancer diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

In June 2013, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published guidance on the management of women with a family history (FH) of breast cancer (BC) and a personal diagnosis of BC. When diagnosed with BC, pressure of timely treatment takes priority and there is potential for a significant FH to be overlooked. This can affect treatment options and follow-up imaging (FUI) surveillance.

METHODS

The practice in our breast unit was compared with the NICE guidance with regard to arranging appropriate FUI and referral to the genetics team for women diagnosed with BC with a FH of BC. Data were obtained retrospectively on 200 women with BC, identified from the breast multidisciplinary team meetings from January to March 2014. Initial audit showed poor compliance with recording of FH. A standardised history taking proforma was produced for clinic use. A re-audit was conducted on a further 200 women between May and July 2016.

RESULTS

In the initial audit, FH was taken in 151 women (76%) compared with 174 women (87%) in the re-audit. Thirty-seven women (25%) were thought to be of moderate risk (MR) or high risk (HR) based on FH in the first audit. Re-audit identified 35 women (20%) with MR or HR FH. Under half (43%) of the women of HR were referred to the genetics team initially; this increased to 70% in the second audit. While almost half (46%) of the women with MR or HR had inappropriate FUI in the initial audit, this fell to 11% in the re-audit.

CONCLUSIONS

A proportion of women diagnosed with BC would fall into the MR or HR categories as defined in the NICE FH guidance. Inadequate recording of FH could result in inadequate FUI surveillance and in some cases missing the opportunity for a genetic referral to assess suitability for gene testing.

Activating Communal Coping Related to Diabetes Risk in Mexican-Heritage Families

We investigate how interpersonal ties influence communication about type 2 diabetes risk and encouragement to maintain or adopt a healthy lifestyle between family members of Mexican heritage, after a family history-based risk assessment intervention. Results suggest that individuals are more likely to initiate risk communication with another family member if they are close to, already seek advice from, or discuss health with him or her. Risk communication precedes encouragement, which is initiated by the older generation of the family. Understanding the role of interpersonal relationships in Mexican-heritage families can help identify who best to target in future health behavior interventions.

Applying theory to characterize impediments to dissemination of community-facing family health history tools: a review of the literature

Uptake of community-facing family health history (FHH) tools to identify those at highest risk of disease and target prevention efforts has been consistently low. This review uses the diffusion of innovations (DOI) as a framework to organize the FHH evidence base and identify potential strategies to improve uptake of community-facing FHH tools. Methods for this literature review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We completed systematic searches in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies from 2009 to 2017 and hand searched bibliographies of relevant literature to identify additional articles. We abstracted and synthesized results, which were then organized by the DOI including the innovation-decision making process and characteristics of the innovation likely to influence diffusion (e.g., compatibility, relative advantage, complexity, trialability, observa/bility). Of the 290 unique articles identified, 65 were eligible for full-text review after title and abstract screening; a total of 27 were included in the final abstraction. Eleven unique tools were identified. The most commonly used tool was the Surgeon General's My Family Health Portrait (n =9/27). Only six studies directly evaluated participant perceptions shown to be associated with tool uptake. Studies tended to focus on improving compatibility by customizing tools to the target population's needs and use of educational interventions. Results from this review suggest the need to evaluate strategies to increase the pace of uptake of community-facing FHH tools. These include pragmatic trials that compare different approaches to engage and evaluate participant perceptions of the relative advantage and complexity of tools. Ancillary support strategies may include collaborations with community networks to facilitate use and implementation study designs for rigorous evaluation.

Extent of Pedigree Required to Screen for and Diagnose Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer: Comparison of Simplified and Extended Pedigrees

BACKGROUND

Obtaining an accurate pedigree is the first step in recognizing a patient with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, or Lynch syndrome. However, lack of standardization of the degree of relationship included in the pedigrees generally limits obtaining a complete and/or accurate pedigree.

DESIGN

This study analyzed the extent of pedigree required to screen for colorectal cancer and to diagnose Lynch syndrome.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 2 tertiary care centers.

PATIENTS

A detailed family history was obtained from patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer from 2003 to 2016. A simplified pedigree that included only first-degree relatives was obtained and compared with the extended pedigree.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The eligibility of the 2 pedigrees was assessed for each proband. The proportion of patients who would be missed using a simplified rather than an extended pedigree was calculated based on the American Cancer Society guidelines for recommending screening for colorectal cancer, on the revised Bethesda guidelines and the revised suspected hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer criteria for screening for hereditary colorectal cancer, and on the Amsterdam II criteria for diagnosis of Lynch syndrome.

RESULTS

The study examined 2015 families, including 41,826 individuals. Use of simplified and extended pedigrees was comparable in screening for colorectal cancer, with ratios of 183 of 185 (98.9%) for American Cancer Society guidelines, 295 of 295 (100%) for revised Bethesda guidelines, and 60 of 60 (100%) for revised suspected hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer criteria. However, the use of simplified pedigrees missed a definitive diagnosis of Lynch syndrome in 6 of 10 patients fulfilling Amsterdam II criteria based on extended pedigrees. The mean ages at diagnosis of the 4 probands included and the 6 missed using simplified pedigrees differed significantly (60.8 vs 38.2 y).

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its recall bias, cross-sectional nature, lack of germline testing, and potential inapplicability to the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

A simplified pedigree is acceptable for selecting candidates to screen for hereditary colorectal cancer, whereas an extended pedigree is still required for a more precise diagnosis of Lynch syndrome, especially in younger patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B97. EXTENSIÓN DE PEDIGREE REQUERIDO EN LA DETECCIÓN Y DIAGNÓSTICO DE CÁNCER COLORRECTAL HEREDITARIO SIN POLIPOSIS: COMPARACIÓN DE LOS PEDIGREES SIMPLIFICADO Y EL EXTENDIDO: La obtención de un Pedigree exacto es el primer paso para reconocer un paciente con cáncer colorrectal hereditario sin poliposis o síndrome de Lynch. Sin embargo, la falta de estandarización del grado de relación incluido en los Pedigrees generalmente limita la obtención de un Pedigree completo y / o preciso.Este estudio analizó el grado de Pedigree requerido para detectar el cáncer colorrectal y diagnosticar el síndrome de Lynch.Se obtuvo una historia familiar detallada de pacientes sometidos a cirugía por cáncer colorrectal desde 2003 hasta 2016. Se obtuvo también un Pedigree simplificado que incluía solo familiares de primer grado y se comparó con el Pedigree extendido.La elegibilidad de los dos Pedigrees se evaluó para cada sujeto de prueba (proband). La proporción de pacientes que se perderían usando un Pedigree simplificado en lugar de extendido se calculó en base a las guías de la Sociedad Americana del Cáncer y sus recomendaciones en la detección de cáncer colorrectal, en las pautas revisadas de Bethesda y en los criterios revisados de cáncer colorrectal hereditario sin poliposis para la detección hereditaria de cáncer colorrectal y según las normas de Amsterdam II para el diagnóstico del síndrome de Lynch.El estudio examinó a 2.015 familias, incluidas 41.826 personas. El uso de Pedigree simplificado y extendido fue comparable en la detección del cáncer colorrectal, con proporciones de 183/185 (98,9%) comparadas con las recomendaciones de la American Cancer Society, 295/295 (100%) para las pautas revisadas de Bethesda y 60/60 (100%) para los criterios revisados de sospecha de cáncer colorrectal hereditario sin poliposis. Sin embargo, el uso de Pedigree simplificado omitió un diagnóstico definitivo del síndrome de Lynch en 6 de diez pacientes que cumplían las normas de Amsterdam II basados en Pedigrees extendidos. Las edades medias al diagnóstico de los cuatro sujetos de prueba incluidos y los seis perdidos usando el Pedigree simplificado diferían significativamente (60.8 vs. 38.2 años).Un Pedigre simplificado es aceptable en la selección de candidatos para la detección de cáncer colorrectal hereditario, mientras que aún se requiere un Pedigree extendido para un diagnóstico más preciso de síndrome de Lynch, especialmente en pacientes más jóvenes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B97. (Traducción-Dr. Edgar Xavier Delgadillo).

Familial tendency as a determinant of tooth loss during long-term periodontal therapy

AIM

Little evidence exists on how familial tendencies affect the long-term success of periodontal therapy. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for two generations and their control patients treated in the same private practice.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Parents and their children were observed for tooth loss between 1986 and 2017. Matching control groups were identified from the same practice, one for the parent and one for the children group. The control patients had no close family members with a history of periodontal diseases. Both the generations and control groups completed a similar course of periodontal therapy. The matching strategy aimed at making the groups as similar as possible with respect to well-known risk and prognostic factors. The data were analysed by multiple regression where the outcome was the number of teeth lost due to periodontal disease.

RESULTS

A total of 435 patients were identified (148 parents, 154 children and 133 controls). 72 parents and 61 children (133) had more than 5 years follow-up (average 15.5 and 12.9 years, respectively). Balancing tests showed that the matching was successful. 65% of tooth loss was attributable to close family history. The regression showed that the parent generation lost 1.02 more teeth than the controls, while the children lost 0.61 more teeth.

CONCLUSION

Having close family members with a history of periodontal diseases is a strong prognostic factor affecting the long-term outcome of periodontal therapy.

Family History Taking in Pediatric Practice: A Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

Family history (FH) is a risk factor for many conditions in pediatric practice. There is no standard of care regarding FH taking, and only a few published studies about current practice.

OBJECTIVES

To explore in depth pediatricians' perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and practices regarding FH taking.

METHODS

The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to develop a comprehensive interview scheme. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with community pediatricians. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic approach and the constant comparison method.

RESULTS

Eleven pediatricians were interviewed. FH was found to be a firmly embedded, complex, and important aspect of pediatric practice. Participants described FH as part of regular holistic care. FH and social history were linked and often appeared to be part of the same concept to participants. FH was used for a range of purposes. In addition to risk assessment, FH information helped clarify diagnosis and select medication, tailor overall patient management based on family circumstance, and provide psychosocial support for parents. Participants expressed confidence in their FH skills and reported tailoring their approach with experience. Most were not concerned about formal evidence for FH and would not change their practice except for "good reason."

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the TDF helped ensure a comprehensive approach to FH taking in pediatric practice. The findings suggest that FH taking in this setting is a complex activity, embedded in routine care. Efforts to make FH taking more systematic may founder if they fail to take into account pediatricians' attitudes, perspectives, and practices.

Family health history: underused for actionable risk assessment

Family health history (FHH) is the most useful means of assessing risk for common chronic diseases. The odds ratio for risk of developing disease with a positive FHH is frequently greater than 2, and actions can be taken to mitigate risk by adhering to screening guidelines, genetic counselling, genetic risk testing, and other screening methods. Challenges to the routine acquisition of FHH include constraints on provider time to collect data and the difficulty in accessing risk calculators. Disease-specific and broader risk assessment software platforms have been developed, many with clinical decision support and informatics interoperability, but few access patient information directly. Software that allows integration of FHH with the electronic medical record and clinical decision support capabilities has provided solutions to many of these challenges. Patient facing, electronic medical record, and web-enabled FHH platforms have been developed, and can provide greater identification of risk compared with conventional FHH ascertainment in primary care. FHH, along with cascade screening, can be an important component of population health management approaches to overall reduction of risk.

Genetics in primary care: validating a tool to pre-symptomatically assess common disease risk using an Australian questionnaire on family history

BACKGROUND

A positive family history for diabetes, cardiovascular diseases or various types of cancer increases the relative risk for these diseases by 2 to 5 times compared to people without a positive family history. Taking a family history in daily general practice is useful for early, pre-symptomatic risk assessment, but at the moment no standardized family history questionnaire is available in the Dutch language. In this study we used a 9-item questionnaire, previously developed and applied in an Australian study, to probe family history for 7 specific conditions. The aim of the present qualitative study was to test face and content validity of the Australian family history questionnaire in Dutch general practice and to advance the standardization of intake information at an international level. We conducted 10 cognitive interviews with patients over 4 rounds, using the verbal probing technique. This approach allows the collection of data through a series of probe questions, with the aim of obtaining detailed information. After each interview round we modified the questionnaire based on the answers of the interviewees. We also performed 10 semi-structured interviews with general practitioners (GPs) to get their opinion on the content and usability of the questionnaire in practice.

RESULTS

Patients varied in age and gender, and 4 patients were known to have a genetic disorder. The GPs varied in age, gender, clinical experience, type of practice and location. In the first round, seven problems were identified in the questionnaire in the categories Comprehension (1), Recall (2), Judgement (0), Response process (2) and Completeness, (2); by the fourth and final round no problems remained. The content and usability of the questionnaire were assessed positively.

CONCLUSIONS

When translated for everyday use in Dutch general practice, the Australian family history questionnaire showed a strong face and content validity, and GPs were positive regarding feasibility. Validation of this family history questionnaire could aid in the standardized integration of genetically relevant information in the electronic health record and clinical research. Conspicuous questionnaire information might alert the GP regarding specific conditions and enable detection of disease at an earlier stage. Additional questionnaire requirements needed however are accurate patient information and consistent, accessible locations in the electronic health record with a possibility to be automatically registered. By deriving a Dutch family history questionnaire convenient for GPs, we adapted a template that might also prove useful for other countries and other medical professionals. This development could make the rapid operationalization of readily available genetic knowledge feasible in daily practice and clinical research, leading to improved medical care.

Obtaining a Genetic Family History Using Computer-Based Tools

Family health history has long been known to be a powerful predictor of individual disease risk. It can be obtained prior to DNA sequencing in order to examine inheritance patterns, to be used as a proxy for genetic information, or as a tool to guide decision-making on the utility of diagnostic genetic testing. Increasingly, it is also being obtained retrospectively from sequenced individuals to examine familial disease penetrance and to identify at-risk relatives for cascade testing. The collection of adequate family history information to screen patients for disease risk and guide decision-making is a time-consuming process that is difficult to accomplish exclusively through discussion between patients and their providers. Engaging individuals and families in data collection and data entry has the potential to improve data accuracy through re-iterative review with family members and health care providers, and to empower patients in their healthcare. In addition, electronic datasets can be shared amongst relatives and stored in electronic health records or personal files, enabling portability of family history information. The U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and others have developed tools for electronic family history collection to help families and providers obtain this useful information in an efficient manner. This unit describes the utility of the web-based My Family Health Portrait (https://familyhistory.hhs.gov) as the prototype for patient-entered family history. © 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Review and Comparison of Electronic Patient-Facing Family Health History Tools

Family health history (FHx) is one of the most important pieces of information available to help genetic counselors and other clinicians identify risk and prevent disease. Unfortunately, the collection of FHx from patients is often too time consuming to be done during a clinical visit. Fortunately, there are many electronic FHx tools designed to help patients gather and organize their own FHx information prior to a clinic visit. We conducted a review and analysis of electronic FHx tools to better understand what tools are available, to compare and contrast to each other, to highlight features of various tools, and to provide a foundation for future evaluation and comparisons across FHx tools. Through our analysis, we included and abstracted 17 patient-facing electronic FHx tools and explored these tools around four axes: organization information, family history collection and display, clinical data collected, and clinical workflow integration. We found a large number of differences among FHx tools, with no two the same. This paper provides a useful review for health care providers, researchers, and patient advocates interested in understanding the differences among the available patient-facing electronic FHx tools.

Family history in colonoscopy patients: feasibility and performance of electronic and paper-based surveys for colorectal cancer risk assessment in the outpatient setting

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Family history is crucial in stratifying patients' risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). Previous risk assessment tools developed for use in clinic or endoscopy settings have demonstrated suboptimal specificity for identifying patients with hereditary cancer syndromes. Our aim was to test the feasibility and performance of 2 family history surveys (paper and electronic) in individuals presenting for outpatient colonoscopy.

METHODS

Patients presenting for outpatient colonoscopy at a tertiary care center were asked to complete a 5-question paper risk assessment survey (short paper survey) either alone or in conjunction with a second, comprehensive electronic family risk assessment survey (comprehensive tablet survey). Each subject's survey results, along with the electronic medical record, were reviewed, and 10 high-risk criteria and PREMM1,2,6 model scores (a predictive model for carrying a Lynch syndrome-associated gene mutation) were used to identify patients warranting genetic evaluation for suspected hereditary cancer syndromes.

RESULTS

Six hundred patients completed the short paper survey (cohort 1), with an additional 100 patients completing both the short paper and comprehensive tablet survey (cohort 2). Using 10 high-risk criteria and/or a PREMM1,2,6 score ≥5%, we identified 10% and 9% of patients as high risk for CRC in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Of the 69 high-risk subjects, 23 (33%) underwent genetic evaluations and 7 (10%) carried germline mutations associated with cancer predisposition. Both patients and endoscopists reported the tools were user-friendly and helpful for CRC risk stratification.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic assessment of family history in colonoscopy patients is feasible and can help endoscopists identify high-risk patients who would benefit from genetic evaluation.

A model for patient-direct screening and referral for familial cancer risk

Patients at increased familial risk of cancer are sub-optimally identified and referred for genetic counseling. We describe a systematic model for information collection, screening and referral for hereditary cancer risk. Individuals from three different clinical and research populations were screened for hereditary cancer risk using a two-tier process: a 7-item screener followed by review of family history by a genetic counselor and application of published criteria. A total of 869 subjects participated in the study; 769 in this high risk population had increased familial cancer risk based on the screening questionnaire. Of these eligible participants, 500 (65.0 %) provided family histories and 332 (66.4 %) of these were found to be at high risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome, 102 (20.4 %) at moderate familial cancer risk, and 66 (13.2 %) at average risk. Three months following receipt of the risk result letter, nearly all respondents found the process at least somewhat helpful (98.4 %). All participants identified as high-risk were mailed a letter recommending genetic counseling and were provided appointment tools. After 1 year, only 13 (7.3 %) of 179 high risk respondents reported pursuit of recommended genetic counseling. Participants were willing to provide family history information for the purposes of risk assessment; however, few patients pursued recommended genetic services. This suggests that cancer family history registries are feasible and viable but that further research is needed to increase the uptake of genetic counseling.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Personalized Multi-Condition Risk Assessment in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

Personal risk for multiple conditions should be assessed in primary care. This study evaluated whether collection of risk factors to generate electronic health record (EHR)-linked health risk appraisal (HRA) for coronary heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer was associated with improved patient-provider communication, risk assessment, and plans for breast cancer screening.

METHODS

This pragmatic trial recruited adults with upcoming visits to 11 primary care practices during 2013-2014 (N=3,703). Pre-visit, intervention patients completed a risk factor and perception assessment and received an HRA; coded risk factor data were sent to the EHR. Post-visit, intervention patients reported risk perception. Pre-visit, control patients only completed the risk perception assessment; post-visit they also completed the risk factor assessment and received the HRA. No data were sent to the EHR for controls. Accuracy/improvement of self-perceived risk was assessed by comparing self-perceived to calculated risk.

RESULTS

The intervention was associated with improvement of patient-provider communication of changes to improve health (78.5% vs 74.1%, AOR=1.67, 99% CI=1.07, 2.60). There was a similar trend for discussion of risk (54.1% vs 45.5%, AOR=1.34, 95% CI=0.97, 1.85). The intervention was associated with greater improvement in accuracy of self-perceived risk for diabetes (16.0% vs 12.6%, p=0.006) and colorectal cancer (27.9% vs 17.2%, p<0.001) with a similar trend for coronary heart disease and breast cancer. There were no changes in plans for breast cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported risk factors and EHR-linked multi-condition HRAs in primary care can modestly improve communication and promote accuracy of self-perceived risk.

Relationships Between Health Literacy and Genomics-Related Knowledge, Self-Efficacy, Perceived Importance, and Communication in a Medically Underserved Population

The increasing importance of genomic information in clinical care heightens the need to examine how individuals understand, value, and communicate about this information. Based on a conceptual framework of genomics-related health literacy, we examined whether health literacy was related to knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceived importance of genetics and family health history (FHH) and communication about FHH in a medically underserved population. The analytic sample was composed of 624 patients at a primary care clinic in a large urban hospital. About half of the participants (47%) had limited health literacy; 55% had no education beyond high school, and 58% were Black. In multivariable models, limited health literacy was associated with lower genetic knowledge (β = -0.55, SE = 0.10, p < .0001), lower awareness of FHH (odds ratio [OR] = 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.28, 0.90], p = .020), and greater perceived importance of genetic information (OR = 1.95, 95% CI [1.27, 3.00], p = .0022) but lower perceived importance of FHH information (OR = 0.47, 95% CI [0.26, 0.86], p = .013) and more frequent communication with a doctor about FHH (OR = 2.02, 95% CI [1.27, 3.23], p = .0032). The findings highlight the importance of considering domains of genomics-related health literacy (e.g., knowledge, oral literacy) in developing educational strategies for genomic information. Health literacy research is essential to avoid increasing disparities in information and health outcomes as genomic information reaches more patients.

Protocol for the "Implementation, adoption, and utility of family history in diverse care settings" study

Background

Risk assessment with a thorough family health history is recommended by numerous organizations and is now a required component of the annual physical for Medicare beneficiaries under the Affordable Care Act. However, there are several barriers to incorporating robust risk assessments into routine care. MeTree, a web-based patient-facing health risk assessment tool, was developed with the aim of overcoming these barriers. In order to better understand what factors will be instrumental for broader adoption of risk assessment programs like MeTree in clinical settings, we obtained funding to perform a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness study in primary care clinics at five diverse healthcare systems. Here, we describe the study’s protocol.

Methods/design

MeTree collects personal medical information and a three-generation family health history from patients on 98 conditions. Using algorithms built entirely from current clinical guidelines, it provides clinical decision support to providers and patients on 30 conditions. All adult patients with an upcoming well-visit appointment at one of the 20 intervention clinics are eligible to participate. Patient-oriented risk reports are provided in real time. Provider-oriented risk reports are uploaded to the electronic medical record for review at the time of the appointment. Implementation outcomes are enrollment rate of clinics, providers, and patients (enrolled vs approached) and their representativeness compared to the underlying population. Primary effectiveness outcomes are the percent of participants newly identified as being at increased risk for one of the clinical decision support conditions and the percent with appropriate risk-based screening. Secondary outcomes include percent change in those meeting goals for a healthy lifestyle (diet, exercise, and smoking). Outcomes are measured through electronic medical record data abstraction, patient surveys, and surveys/qualitative interviews of clinical staff.

Discussion

This study evaluates factors that are critical to successful implementation of a web-based risk assessment tool into routine clinical care in a variety of healthcare settings. The result will identify resource needs and potential barriers and solutions to implementation in each setting as well as an understanding potential effectiveness.

Trial registration

NCT01956773

Family history intake: a challenge to personalized approaches in health promotion and disease prevention

Background

Family history is considered an essential, obligatory part of the primary physician’s intake interview. Including coded FH in a unified medical file can save expensive genetic tests and detect the early onset of diseases in young people who are not recommended to be screened routinely. The objectives of this study are to explore the frequency and point in time of recording the coded family history (FH) as a first step to increasing awareness of the importance of such information.

Methods

All ICD-9 coded diagnoses of familial histories of disease (ICD-9 coded V16.0 – V19.8), including diseases related to gender, age, and indications of chronic diseases, were collected from the electronic medical records of patients ages 18 and above in Israel’s Maccabi Health Care system. The study was carried out in 2012 on the basis of coded data for 1.9 million Maccabi members, which were collected from 2004 through 2011.

Results

Of the Maccabi members (the second biggest HMO in Israel covering 2 million people), only 10 % had FH coded documentation. FH was significantly more frequent for females than for males (13.5 % vise 10.1 %) and increased with age. About 10 % of the FH documentation occurred before any disease was diagnosed. The most frequent FH documentation was observed for cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes. In the case of cancer FH was more frequent in females, whereas in the case of males it was cardiovascular disease.

Discussion

Family history is an easy tool and need to be coded and implimented in most visits in order to get the best information of the potential health and disease of the patients.

Conclusions

FH frequency is very low and varies with gender and age. The literature suggests that implementing it routinely in primary care will improve health care. Further research is needed to identify the factors that impede primary care givers from complying with FH guidelines.

Screening for Familial Hypercholesterolemia in Children: What Can We Learn From Adult Screening Programs?

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), an autosomal dominant atherosclerotic disease, is a common monogenic subtype of cardiovascular disease. Patients with FH suffer an increased risk of early onset heart disease. Early identification of abnormally elevated cholesterol signpost clinicians to interventions that will significantly decrease risk of related morbidity and mortality. Cascade genetic testing can subsequently identify at-risk relatives. Accordingly, a number of screening approaches have been implemented for FH in countries including the UK and the Netherlands. However, incomplete identification of cases remains a challenge. Moreover, the potential for early intervention is now raising questions about the value of implementing universal cholesterol screening approaches that focus on children. In this report, we briefly discuss the potential benefit of such screening. Additionally, we submit that ever increasing genome technological capability will force a discussion of including genetic tests in these screening programs. We discuss the opportunities and challenges presented by such an approach. We close with recommendations that the success of such screening endeavors will rely on a better integrated practice model in public health genomics that bridges stakeholders including practitioners in primary care, clinical genetics and public health.

Community-Based Family Health History Education: The Role of State Health Agencies in Engaging Medically Underserved Populations in Understanding Genomics and Risk of Chronic Disease

Although family health history (FHH) collection has been recognized as an influential method for assessing a person's risk of chronic disease, studies have shown that people who are low-income, from racial and ethnic minorities, and poorly educated are less likely to collect their FHH or share it with a medical professional. Programs to raise public awareness about the importance of FHH have conventionally targeted patients in primary care clinics or in the general community, but few efforts have been made to coordinate educational efforts across settings. This paper describes a project by the Connecticut Department of Public Health's Genomics Office to disseminate training materials about FHH as broadly as possible, by engaging partners in multiple settings: a local health department, a community health center, and two advocacy organizations that serve minority and immigrant populations. We used a mixed methods program evaluation to examine the efficacy of the FHH program and to assess barriers in integrating it into the groups' regular programming. Our findings highlight how a state health department can promote FHH education among underserved communities.

Securing and Documenting Cancer Family History in the Age of the Electronic Medical Record

Family health history is one of the least expensive, most useful, and most underused methods available to conduct assessments of the genetic aspect of a condition or to target the need for a genetic evaluation. This article introduces to the surgical oncologist the reason and process of collecting family history information. As medical records shift from paper to electronic formats, pedigree drawings are not readily available within the electronic health records. International efforts are underway to develop searchable, updatable, and interoperable formats that can collect family history information to inform clinical decision support for genetic risk assessment.

Challenges in the care of familial hypercholesterolemia: a community care perspective

Familial hyperchoelsterolaemia (FH) remains under-diagnosed and under-treated in the community setting. Earlier evidence suggested a prevalence of 1:500 worldwide but newer evidence suggests it is more common. Less than 15% of FH patients are ever diagnosed, with children and young adults rarely tested despite having the most to gain given their lifetime exposure. Increasing awareness among primary care teams is critical to improve the detection profile for FH. Cascade testing in the community setting needs a sustainable approach to be developed to facilitate family tracing of index cases. The use of the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network Criteria score to facilitate a phenotypic diagnosis is the preferred approach adopted in Australia and eliminates the need to undertake genetic testing for all suspected FH cases.

10 years later: assessing the impact of public health efforts on the collection of family health history

In 2004, a nationwide survey found that the majority (96.3%) of Americans believed their family health history (FHx) was important for their own health; however, only a third (29.8%) of respondents had ever actively collected this information. Over the past decade, government agencies, advocacy groups, professional societies, and healthcare provider organizations have aimed to improve the collection rates and utilization of FHx. This study assesses the current attitudes, knowledge, and practices of Americans regarding their FHx and whether the interventions over the past 10 years have led to any FHx-related changes. We conducted a nationwide survey of 5,258 respondents using the same measures used in the 2004 survey. Overall, there was little change in Americans knowledge and use of FHx information. While there was a statistically significant increase in respondents who have actively collected their FHx (36.9%), respondents know roughly the same or less about his or her FHx today. Furthermore, only a small fraction (2.6%) had ever collected their FHx using a web-based FHx tool. Several factors were identified which influence whether an individual actively collects his or her FHx. New FHx tools and approaches may be necessary to promote clinically meaningful improvement in FHx collection among patients.

A practice guideline from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors: referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment

DISCLAIMER

The practice guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) are developed by members of the ACMG and NSGC to assist medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and other health-care providers in making decisions about appropriate management of genetic concerns, including access to and/or delivery of services. Each practice guideline focuses on a clinical or practice-based issue and is the result of a review and analysis of current professional literature believed to be reliable. As such, information and recommendations within the ACMG and NSGC joint practice guidelines reflect the current scientific and clinical knowledge at the time of publication, are current only as of their publication date, and are subject to change without notice as advances emerge. In addition, variations in practice, which take into account the needs of the individual patient and the resources and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice, may warrant approaches, treatments, and/or procedures that differ from the recommendations outlined in this guideline. Therefore, these recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does the use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. Genetic counseling practice guidelines are never intended to displace a health-care provider's best medical judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a particular patient or patient population. Practice guidelines are published by the ACMG or the NSGC for educational and informational purposes only, and neither the ACMG nor the NSGC "approve" or "endorse" any specific methods, practices, or sources of information.Cancer genetic consultation is an important aspect of the care of individuals at increased risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome. Yet several patient, clinician, and system-level barriers hinder identification of individuals appropriate for cancer genetics referral. Thus, the purpose of this practice guideline is to present a single set of comprehensive personal and family history criteria to facilitate identification and maximize appropriate referral of at-risk individuals for cancer genetic consultation. To develop this guideline, a literature search for hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes was conducted using PubMed. In addition, GeneReviews and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were reviewed when applicable. When conflicting guidelines were identified, the evidence was ranked as follows: position papers from national and professional organizations ranked highest, followed by consortium guidelines, and then peer-reviewed publications from single institutions. The criteria for cancer genetic consultation referral are provided in two formats: (i) tables that list the tumor type along with the criteria that, if met, would warrant a referral for a cancer genetic consultation and (ii) an alphabetical list of the syndromes, including a brief summary of each and the rationale for the referral criteria that were selected. Consider referral for a cancer genetic consultation if your patient or any of their first-degree relatives meet any of these referral criteria.

Clinically relevant lessons from Family HealthLink: a cancer and coronary heart disease familial risk assessment tool

PURPOSE

A descriptive retrospective study was performed using two separate user cohorts to determine the effectiveness of Family HealthLink as a clinical triage tool.

METHODS

Cohort 1 consisted of 2,502 users who accessed the public website. Cohort 2 consisted of 194 new patients in a Comprehensive Breast Center setting. For patient users, we assessed documentation of family history and genetics referral. For all users seen in a genetics clinic, the Family HealthLink assessment was compared with that performed by genetic counselors and genetic testing outcomes.

RESULTS

For general public users, the percentage meeting high-risk criteria were: for cancer only, 22.2%; for coronary heart disease only, 24.3%; and for both diseases, 10.4%. These risk stratification percentages were similar for the patient users. For the patient users, there often was documentation of family history of certain cancer types by oncology professionals, but age of onset and coronary heart disease family history were less complete. Of 142 with high-risk assignments seen in a genetics clinic, 130 (91.5%) of these assignments were corroborated. Forty-two underwent genetic testing and 17 (40.5%) had new molecular diagnoses established.

CONCLUSION

A significant percentage of individuals are at high familial risk and may require more intensive screening and referral. Interactive family history triage tools can aid this process.Genet Med 17 6, 493-500.

Completeness of pedigree and family cancer history for ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the completeness of pedigree and of number of pedigree analysis to know the acceptable familial history in Korean women with ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Interview was conducted in 50 ovarian cancer patients for obtaining familial history three times over the 6 weeks. The completeness of pedigree is estimated in terms of familial history of disease (cancer), health status (health living, disease and death), and onset age of disease and death.

RESULTS

The completion of pedigree was 79.3, 85.1, and 85.6% at the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time of interview and the time for pedigree analysis was 34.3, 10.8, and 3.1 minutes, respectively. The factors limiting pedigree analysis were as follows: out of contact with their relatives (38%), no living ancestors who know the family history (34%), dispersed family member because of the Korean War (16%), unknown cause of death (12%), reluctance to ask medical history of relatives (10%), and concealing their ovarian cancer (10%). The percentage of cancers revealed in 1st (2%) and 2nd degree (8%) relatives were increasing through surveys, especially colorectal cancer related with Lynch syndrome (4%).

CONCLUSION

Analysis of pedigree at least two times is acceptable in Korean woman with ovarian cancer from the first study. The completion of pedigree is increasing, while time to take family history is decreasing during three time survey.

Medical genetic counseling for breast cancer in primary care: a synthesis of major determinants of physicians' practices in primary care settings

OBJECTIVES

This paper aims to identify relevant potential predictors of medical genetic counseling for breast cancer (MGC-BC) in primary care and to develop a comprehensive questionnaire to study MGC-BC.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to identify the predictors of MGC-BC among primary care physicians. Relevant articles were identified in selected databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL) and 4 selected relevant electronic journals.

RESULTS

An inductive analysis of the 193 quantitatively tested variables, conducted by 3 researchers, showed that 6 conceptual categories of determinants, namely (1) demographic, (2) organizational, (3) experiential, (4) professional, (5) psychological, and (6) cognitive, influence MGC-BC practices.

CONCLUSION

There is a scarcity of literature addressing the medical behavior determinants of MGC-BC. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies put into action to support the integration of MGC-BC in primary care medical practices and routines. However, our results shed light on 2 levels of actions that could improve genetic counseling services in primary care: (1) medical training and educational efforts emphasizing family history collection (individual level), and (2) clarification of roles and responsibilities in ordering and referral practices in genetic counseling and genetic testing for better healthcare management (organizational level).