Outcomes from intensive training in genetic cancer risk counseling for clinicians

A systematic review of genomic education for nurses and nursing students: Are they sufficient in the era of precision health?

BACKGROUND

Integration of genomic content into nursing curricula and continuing education is limited.

PURPOSE

This systematic review aimed to identify educational strategies to deliver genomics content.

METHODS

CINAHL Plus, ERIC, Ovid MEDLINE, and Scopus electronic databases were searched from January 1, 2003 through July 6, 2023. The three domains of learning: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor were used to categorize educational outcomes. A narrative approach was used to synthesize the data using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

DISCUSSION

Ten studies met inclusion criteria. Quality assessment for bias was conducted independently; study quality ranged from fair to poor. No study used a complete psychometrically tested instrument to measure genomic cognitive or affective knowledge; none measured the psychomotor domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective strategies to deliver genomic education are a priority. Development of reliable and valid instruments for the assessment of educational interventions, including the psychomotor skills needed for practice.

Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk

As demand for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) continues to increase, so does the sense of urgency to scale up efforts to triage patients, facilitate informed consent, and order genetic testing for cancer risk. The National Society of Genetic Counselors outlines the elements of informed consent that should be addressed in a GCRA session. While this practice resource aims to improve health equity, research on how well the elements of informed consent are implemented in practice is lacking. This retrospective and prospective mixed-methods study assessed how adequately the elements of informed consent are addressed during pre-test GCRA among 307 community clinicians (CC) and 129 cancer genetic counselors (GC), and barriers they face to addressing these elements. Results revealed that more than 90% of both cohorts consistently addressed components of at least 5 of the 10 elements of informed consent during a pre-test consultation. Technical aspects and accuracy of the test and utilization of test results were the most similarly addressed elements. Notably, GCs more often review the purpose of the test and who to test, general information about the gene(s), and economic considerations whereas CCs more often review alternatives to testing. Both cohorts reported psychosocial aspects of the informed consent process as the least adequately addressed element. Time constraints and patient-related concerns were most often cited by both cohorts as barriers to optimal facilitation of informed consent. Additional barriers reported by CCs included provider lack of awareness, experience, or education, and availability of resources and institutional support. Findings from this study may contribute to the development of alternative delivery models that incorporate supplementary educational tools to enhance patient understanding about the utility of genetic testing, while helping to mitigate the barrier of time constraints. Equally important is the use of this information to develop continuing education tools for providers.

Educational Interventions to Improve Nurses' Competency in Genetics and Genomics: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Regardless of profession and area of practice, every health care provider must possess basic knowledge and skills to integrate genetics and genomics into practice. Nurses play a pivotal role in providing health care, and they should be well equipped to apply genetics and genomics to health care settings. This scoping review explored the existing literature of educational interventions to improve nurses' competencies, including knowledge, attitudes, and skills in genetics and genomics.

METHOD

A scoping review was conducted with the Joanna Briggs Institute method for scoping reviews. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ERIC in March 2021. We included original research studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals that reported findings on the effectiveness of an educational intervention to improve nurses' competencies in genetics or genomics.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies were included in the scoping review. Registered nurses, advanced practice nurses, and nursing faculty were targeted with different types of interventions, including face-to-face education, online/remote education, and written materials.

CONCLUSION

Limited research shows that various educational interventions improved the competencies in genetics and genomics among nurses with different degrees and areas of practice. Research is needed to evaluate the long-term effects of educational interventions by reliable assessment methods for nurses with appropriate sample sizes. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2022;53(1):13-20.].

Development and Pilot Implementation of the Genomic Risk Assessment for Cancer Implementation and Sustainment (GRACIAS) Intervention in Mexico

PURPOSE

Genomic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) is standard-of-care practice that uses genomic tools to identify individuals with increased cancer risk, enabling screening for early detection and cancer prevention interventions. GCRA is not available in most of Mexico, where breast cancer (BC) is the leading cause of cancer death and ovarian cancer has a high mortality rate.

METHODS

Guided by an implementation science framework, we piloted the Genomic Risk Assessment for Cancer Implementation and Sustainment (GRACIAS) intervention, combining GCRA training, practice support, and low-cost BRCA1/2 (BRCA) gene testing at four centers in Mexico. The RE-AIM model was adapted to evaluate GRACIAS intervention outcomes, including reach, the proportion of new patients meeting adapted National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria who participated in GCRA. Barriers to GCRA were identified through roundtable sessions and semistructured interviews.

RESULTS

Eleven clinicians were trained across four sites. Mean pre-post knowledge score increased from 60% to 67.2% (range 53%-86%). GCRA self-efficacy scores increased by 31% (95% CI, 6.47 to 55.54; P = .02). Participant feedback recommended Spanish content to improve learning. GRACIAS promoted reach at all sites: 77% in Universidad de Guadalajara, 86% in Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, 90% in Tecnológico de Monterrey, and 77% in Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán. Overall, a pathogenic BRCA variant was identified in 15.6% (195 of 1,253) of patients. All trainees continue to provide GCRA and address barriers to care.

CONCLUSION

We describe the first project to use implementation science methods to develop and deliver an innovative multicomponent implementation intervention, combining low-cost BRCA testing, comprehensive GCRA training, and practice support in Mexico. Scale-up of the GRACIAS intervention will promote risk-appropriate care, cancer prevention, and reduction in related mortality.

A systematic review of communication interventions to help healthcare professionals discuss genetic testing for breast cancer

Purpose

This systematic review examined educational training interventions for healthcare professionals (HCPs) discussing genetic testing and risk for hereditary breast cancer. There was a particular focus on the presence, and content, of communication elements within these packages.

Methods

Searches were run via CINAHL, EMBASE, PUBMED, and PsychInfo in February 2019 to identify training interventions available to HCPs with reference to communication skills. Studies were assessed for quality, with relevant intervention and outcome data extracted and synthesized. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42019124010).

Results

Of 3,988 items, seven papers, two of which were linked, were eligible for inclusion. There was a mix of randomized and single arm studies with web-based and face-to-face interventions. Content included an overview of genetics, hereditary and familial background, and recommended practice techniques. Outcomes focused on communication, self-efficacy, knowledge, and satisfaction. Interventions were designed for genetic counselors, physicians, primary care physicians (PCPs), medical students, and nurses. None of the papers featured oncologists or surgeons.

Conclusions

This review revealed an overall lack of publications which evaluated interventions to assist HCPs discussing hereditary breast cancer risk and testing. Studies failed to operationalize which ‘communication skills’ they included, nor did they consistently report randomization, outcome measures, or analysis.

Discussing the need for, and management of, genetic testing for inherited cancer risk with individuals and their families can be challenging. As genetic testing in breast cancer becomes more common, the provision of specific communication-based training programs, with reference to genetic testing, risk assessments, and counseling skills is warranted.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-020-05741-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Informing Integration of Genomic Medicine Into Primary Care: An Assessment of Current Practice, Attitudes, and Desired Resources

Introduction: Preparing primary care providers for genomic medicine (GM) first requires assessment of their educational needs in order to provide clear, purposeful direction and justify educational activities. More understanding is needed about primary care providers’ perspectives on their role in newer areas of GM and what resources would be helpful in practice. Our objective was to determine family physicians’ (FP) current involvement and confidence in GM, attitudes regarding its clinical value, suggestions for integration of GM into practice, and resources and education required.

Methods: A self-complete anonymous questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 2,000 FPs in Ontario, Canada in September 2012.

Results: Adjusted response rate was 26% (361/1,365), mean age was 51, and 53% were male. FPs reported many aspects of traditional GM as part of current practice (eliciting family history: 93%; deciding who to refer to genetics: 94%; but few reported confidence (44%, 32% respectively). Newer areas of GM were not part of most FPs’ current practice and confidence was low (pharmacogenetics: 28% part of practice, 5% confident; direct-to-consumer genetic testing: 14%/2%; whole genome sequencing: 8%/2%). Attitudes were mixed with 59% agreeing that GM would improve patient health outcomes, 41% seeing benefits to genetic testing, but only 36% agreeing it was their responsibility to incorporate GM into practice. Few could identify useful sources of genetic information (22%) or find information about genetic tests (21%). Educational resources participants anticipated would be useful included contact information for local genetics clinics (89%), summaries of genetic disorders (86%), and genetic referral (85%) and testing (86%) criteria. About 58% were interested in learning about new genetic technologies. Most (76%) wanted to learn through in-person teaching (lectures, seminars etc.), 66% wanted contact with a local genetic counselor to answer questions, and 59% were interested in a genetics education website.

Conclusion: FPs lack confidence in GM skills needed for practice, particularly in emerging areas of GM. They see their role as making appropriate referrals, are somewhat optimistic about the contribution GM may make to patient care, but express caution about its current clinical benefits. There is a need for evidence-based educational resources integrated into primary care and improved communication with genetic specialists.

Clinical interpretation of pathogenic ATM and CHEK2 variants on multigene panel tests: navigating moderate risk

Comprehensive genomic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) helps patients, family members, and providers make informed choices about cancer screening, surgical and chemotherapeutic risk reduction, and genetically targeted cancer therapies. The increasing availability of multigene panel tests for clinical applications allows testing of well-defined high-risk genes, as well as moderate-risk genes, for which the penetrance and spectrum of cancer risk are less well characterized. Moderate-risk genes are defined as genes that, when altered by a pathogenic variant, confer a 2 to fivefold relative risk of cancer. Two such genes included on many comprehensive cancer panels are the DNA repair genes ATM and CHEK2, best known for moderately increased risk of breast cancer development. However, the impact of screening and preventative interventions and spectrum of cancer risk beyond breast cancer associated with ATM and/or CHEK2 variants remain less well characterized. We convened a large, multidisciplinary, cross-sectional panel of GCRA clinicians to review challenging, peer-submitted cases of patients identified with ATM or CHEK2 variants. This paper summarizes the inter-professional case discussion and recommendations generated during the session, the level of concordance with respect to recommendations between the academic and community clinician participants for each case, and potential barriers to implementing recommended care in various practice settings.

Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment for Breast Cancer in Latin America

In Latin America, breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women, and limited available data suggest that up to 15% of all breast cancer cases in the region are hereditary. Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling is a critical component of the appropriate clinical care of patients with hereditary breast cancer and their families. Unfortunately, genetic services are underdeveloped across Latin America, and access to genetic testing and counseling is very scarce in the region. Barriers contributing to the access to genetic care are high cost and lack of insurance coverage for genetic tests, insufficient oncogenetics training or expertise, nonexistence of genetic counseling as a clinical discipline, and lack of supportive healthcare policies. In this review, we highlight relevant initiatives undertaken in several Latin American countries aimed at creating genetic cancer risk assessment programs. Additionally, we present a review of the scientific literature on the current status of breast cancer genomics in Latin America, with specific emphasis on demographic indicators, access to cancer genetic care, training and strategies to improve outcomes, and international collaborations.

Genetics/genomics education for nongenetic health professionals: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

The completion of the Human Genome Project has enhanced avenues for disease prevention, diagnosis, and management. Owing to the shortage of genetic professionals, genetics/genomics training has been provided to nongenetic health professionals for years to establish their genomic competencies. We conducted a systematic literature review to summarize and evaluate the existing genetics/genomics education programs for nongenetic health professionals.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched from January 1990 to June 2016.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. There was a growing publication trend. Program participants were mainly physicians and nurses. The curricula, which were most commonly provided face to face, included basic genetics; applied genetics/genomics; ethical, legal, and social implications of genetics/genomics; and/or genomic competencies/recommendations in particular professional fields. Only one-third of the curricula were theory-based. The majority of studies adopted a pre-/post-test design and lacked follow-up data collection. Nearly all studies reported participants' improvements in one or more of the following areas: knowledge, attitudes, skills, intention, self-efficacy, comfort level, and practice. However, most studies did not report participants' age, ethnicity, years of clinical practice, data validity, and data reliability.

CONCLUSION

Many genetics/genomics education programs for nongenetic health professionals exist. Nevertheless, enhancement in methodological quality is needed to strengthen education initiatives.Genet Med advance online publication 20 October 2016.

The Genetics of Breast Cancer: What the Surgical Oncologist Needs to Know

This article summarizes the impact of germline predisposition to breast cancer on the surgical management of breast cancer and breast cancer risk. Surgical implications of germline predisposition to breast cancer are now more nuanced due to the application of increasingly more complicated next-generation sequencing-based tests. The rapid pace of change will continue to challenge paradigms for genetic cancer risk assessment, which can influence the medical and surgical management of breast cancer risk as well as strategies for screening and for risk reduction.

Next-Generation Testing for Cancer Risk: Perceptions, Experiences, and Needs Among Early Adopters in Community Healthcare Settings

BACKGROUND

Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are driving a shift from single-gene to multigene panel testing for clinical genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). This study explored perceptions, experiences, and challenges with NGS testing for GCRA among U.S. community-based clinicians.

METHODS

Surveys delivered at initial and 8-month time points, and 12-month tracking of cases presented in a multidisciplinary web-based case conference series, were conducted with GCRA providers who participated in a 235-member nationwide community of practice.

RESULTS

The proportion of respondents ordering panel tests rose from 29% at initial survey (27/94) to 44% (46/107) within 8 months. Respondents reported significantly less confidence about interpreting and counseling about NGS compared with single-gene test results (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). The most cited reasons for not ordering NGS tests included concerns about clinical utility, interpreting and communicating results, and lack of knowledge/skills. Multigene panels were used in 204/668 cases presented during 2013, yielding 37 (18%) deleterious (7% in low/moderate-penetrance genes), 88 (43%) with ≥1 variant of uncertain significance, 77 (38%) uninformative negative, and 2 (1%) inconclusive results.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite concerns about utility and ability to interpret/counsel about NGS results, a rapidly increasing uptake of NGS testing among community clinicians was documented. Challenges identified in case discussions point to the need for ongoing education, practice-based support, and opportunities to partner in research that contributes to characterization of lesser known genes.

Pre-test genetic counseling services for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer delivered by non-genetics professionals in the state of Florida

Genetic counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer now includes practitioners from multiple healthcare professions, specialties, and settings. This study examined whether non-genetics professionals (NGPs) perform guideline-based patient intake and informed consent before genetic testing. NGPs offering BRCA testing services in Florida (n = 386) were surveyed about clinical practices. Among 81 respondents (response rate = 22%), approximately half reported: sometimes scheduling a separate session for pre-test counseling lasting 11-30 min prior to testing, discussing familial implications of testing, benefits and limitations of risk management options, and discussing the potential psychological impact and insurance-related issues. Few constructed a three-generation pedigree, discussed alternative hereditary cancer syndromes, or the meaning of a variant result. This lack of adherence to guideline-based practice may result in direct harm to patients and their family members. NGPs who are unable to deliver guideline adherent cancer genetics services should focus on identification and referral of at-risk patients to in person or telephone services provided by genetics professionals.

Impact of web-based case conferencing on cancer genetics training outcomes for community-based clinicians

INTRODUCTION

Technology and market forces are driving the demand for cancer risk assessment services in the community setting, where few clinicians are trained to order and interpret predictive genetic tests. City of Hope conducts a three-phase course in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) for community-based clinicians, comprised of distance didactics, face-to-face workshops, and 12 months of professional development. As designed, the course cannot meet increasing demands for GCRA training. Action research identified face-to-face workshops as a barrier to increasing course capacity. This study compared the learning effectiveness of Web-based case conferencing to face-to-face training.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental design compared pre- to post-knowledge, skills, and professional self-efficacy outcomes from 2009 to 2010 course cohorts (n = 96). The intervention group (n = 52) engaged in Web-based case conferences during distance learning; the comparison group (n = 44) participated in the course as originally designed.

RESULTS

Both groups and all practice disciplines demonstrated significant pre- to post-increases on all measures. Knowledge increases were higher for the intervention group (p < 0.015); skills and self-efficacy increases were comparable between groups (p < 0.33 and p < 0.30, respectively).

DISCUSSION

Findings support the learning utility of Web-based case conferencing. Further studies may inform the development of tools to assess the impact of Web-based case conferencing on practice change and patient outcomes, in alignment with the highest standards of continuing professional development.

Personalized cancer genetics training for personalized medicine: improving community-based healthcare through a genetically literate workforce

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of a multimodal interdisciplinary course on genetic cancer risk assessment and research collaboration for community-based clinicians. Clinicians are increasingly requested to conduct genetic cancer risk assessment, but many are inadequately prepared to provide these services.

METHODS

A prospective analysis of 131 participants (48 physicians, 41 advanced-practice nurses, and 42 genetic counselors) from community settings across the United States. The course was delivered in three phases: distance didactic learning, face-to-face training, and 12 months of web-based professional development activities to support integration of skills into practice. Cancer genetics knowledge, skills, professional self-efficacy, and practice changes were measured at baseline, immediate, and 14 months postcourse.

RESULTS

Knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy scores were significantly different between practice disciplines; however, postscores increased significantly overall and for each discipline (P < 0.001). Fourteen-month practice outcomes reflect significant increases in provision of genetic cancer risk assessment services (P = 0.018), dissemination of cancer prevention information (P = 0.005) and high-risk screening recommendations (P = 0.004) to patients, patient enrollment in research (P = 0.013), and educational outreach about genetic cancer risk assessment (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Results support the efficacy of the multimodal course as a tool to develop a genetically literate workforce. Sustained alumni participation in web-based professional development activities has evolved into a distance-mediated community of practice in clinical cancer genetics, modeling the lifelong learning goals envisioned by leading continuing medical education stakeholders.

Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: State of the Art and Future Directions in the Era of Personalized Medicine

Scientific and technologic advances are revolutionizing our approach to genetic cancer risk assessment, cancer screening and prevention, and targeted therapy, fulfilling the promise of personalized medicine. In this monograph, we review the evolution of scientific discovery in cancer genetics and genomics, and describe current approaches, benefits, and barriers to the translation of this information to the practice of preventive medicine. Summaries of known hereditary cancer syndromes and highly penetrant genes are provided and contrasted with recently discovered genomic variants associated with modest increases in cancer risk. We describe the scope of knowledge, tools, and expertise required for the translation of complex genetic and genomic test information into clinical practice. The challenges of genomic counseling include the need for genetics and genomics professional education and multidisciplinary team training, the need for evidence-based information regarding the clinical utility of testing for genomic variants, the potential dangers posed by premature marketing of first-generation genomic profiles, and the need for new clinical models to improve access to and responsible communication of complex disease risk information. We conclude that given the experiences and lessons learned in the genetics era, the multidisciplinary model of genetic cancer risk assessment and management will serve as a solid foundation to support the integration of personalized genomic information into the practice of cancer medicine.

Genetic educational needs and the role of genetics in primary care: a focus group study with multiple perspectives

BACKGROUND

Available evidence suggests that improvements in genetics education are needed to prepare primary care providers for the impact of ongoing rapid advances in genomics. Postgraduate (physician training) and master (midwifery training) programmes in primary care and public health are failing to meet these perceived educational needs. The aim of this study was to explore the role of genetics in primary care (i.e. family medicine and midwifery care) and the need for education in this area as perceived by primary care providers, patient advocacy groups and clinical genetics professionals.

METHODS

Forty-four participants took part in three types of focus groups: mono-disciplinary groups of general practitioners and midwives, respectively and multidisciplinary groups composed of a diverse set of experts. The focus group sessions were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis. Recurrent themes were identified.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged regarding the educational needs and the role of genetics in primary care: (1) genetics knowledge, (2) family history, (3) ethical dilemmas and psychosocial effects in relation to genetics and (4) insight into the organisation and role of clinical genetics services. These themes reflect a shift in the role of genetics in primary care with implications for education. Although all focus group participants acknowledged the importance of genetics education, general practitioners felt this need more urgently than midwives and more strongly emphasized their perceived knowledge deficiencies.

CONCLUSION

The responsibilities of primary care providers with regard to genetics require further study. The results of this study will help to develop effective genetics education strategies to improve primary care providers' competencies in this area. More research into the educational priorities in genetics is needed to design courses that are suitable for postgraduate and master programmes for general practitioners and midwives.

Consumers' views of direct-to-consumer genetic information

In this report, we describe the evolution and types of genetic information provided directly to consumers, discuss potential advantages and disadvantages of these products, and review research evaluating consumer responses to direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. The available evidence to date has focused on predictive tests and does not suggest that individuals, health care providers, or health care systems have been harmed by a DTC provision of genetic information. An understanding of consumer responses to susceptibility tests has lagged behind. The Multiplex Initiative is presented as a case study of research to understand consumers' responses to DTC susceptibility tests. Three priority areas are recommended for accelerated research activities to inform public policy regarding DTC genetic information: (a) exploring consumer's long-term responses to DTC genetic testing on a comprehensive set of outcomes, (b) evaluating optimal services to support decision making about genetic testing, and (c) evaluating best practices in promoting genetic competencies among health providers.

Clinical genetics issues encountered by family physicians

PURPOSE

To describe the genetics-related clinical issues encountered by family physicians, and the medical problems they referred to genetics consultants.

METHODS

Questionnaires were mailed to a nationwide, random sample of 498 practicing family physicians, asking how many times in the past year they discussed genetic information about 19 familial or genetic conditions with patients and what proportion of the families with each genetic condition were referred for genetics consultation. Factor analysis was used to group the conditions.

RESULTS

The response rate was 38% (n = 190). Respondents were similar to non-respondents except that more were women. Most family physicians reported discussing the genetics of common cancers, cardiovascular disease, and Alzheimer's disease with two or more patients in the past year. Thirteen percent had referred families for genetics assessment of breast-ovarian cancer but only two made genetics referrals for cardiovascular disease or dementia. 25% to 50% of family physicians had addressed genetic issues in at least one family with hemoglobinopathy, a blood clotting disorder, hemochromatosis, mental illness, vision loss or deafness, chromosome abnormality, infertility or pregnancy loss, congenital anomalies, mental retardation, and neurofibromatosis. Most cases were not referred to geneticists. Of respondents, 23% said that genetics consultation is very difficult to obtain or unavailable and 18% listed ethical and social dilemmas related to pursuing genetic diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Nationwide, family physicians address a variety of genetics issues with patients, most frequently consulting geneticists for perinatal conditions and familial cancers. Access to genetics consultation is more difficult in rural areas. These data may be used in organizing genetics services and in planning professional education programs for primary care clinicians.

Mentoring nurses in familial cancer risk assessment and counseling: lessons learned from a formative evaluation

BACKGROUND

As familial cancer genetic services moves into community practice increased numbers of trained health professionals are needed to counsel individuals seeking cancer risk information. Nurses have been targeted to provide cancer risk assessment and counseling. To help prepare nurses for this role, a 5-day training in familial cancer risk assessment and counseling followed by a long-distance mentorship to support continued skill development in the work environment was conducted by Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.

METHODS

Four cohorts (N = 41) have completed the training and were randomized to either an immediate or delayed mentorship. A formative evaluation assessed the nurse's ability to consult with other genetic health professionals and build self-efficacy in counseling skills via responses to questionnaire. A post-mentorship interview evaluated the usefulness, timing and length of the mentorship.

RESULTS

For both groups, there was a statistically significant improvement in self-efficacy for all skills from baseline to 6 months and an increased number of nurses consulting with genetic health professionals. All the nurses reported the value of the mentorship and those with less cancer risk counseling experience prior to the training needed support and resources for further skill and program development. Lessons learned from this formative evaluation are provided.

Lost in transition: challenges in the expanding field of adult genetics

It is increasingly clear that medical genetics has broad relevance in adult clinical medicine. More adult patients with genetic conditions are being recognized, genetic testing for adult-onset genetic conditions is expanding, and children with genetic conditions are now more likely to survive to adulthood. While the number of patients who could benefit from medical genetic services increases, adult care providers are less well educated about clinical genetics and are not sufficiently prepared to meet the growing needs of this population. Genetics professionals may also be ill-suited for this challenge, since geneticists and genetic counselors have traditionally had greater experience in pediatric and prenatal settings. Communication between primary care physicians who treat adults and the genetics community is currently suboptimal and the identification and subsequent referral of adult patients for genetic services need improvement. Finally, published guidelines that address how to deliver genetic services to adult patients are unavailable for many genetic conditions. In this article we address the challenges of transitioning genetics services from traditional, and largely pediatric-based models to paradigms that can best address the needs of adult patients with genetic conditions. Potential solutions and the practicality of implementation of a team-based approach to adult genetic medicine, including the application of genetic counseling, are also discussed.

If We Build It … Will They Come? – Establishing a Cancer Genetics Services Clinic for an Underserved Predominantly Latina Cohort

BACKGROUND

Cancer genetic counseling and testing is a standard of care option for appropriate families and can identify individuals at increased risk prior to diagnosis, when prevention or detection strategies are most effective. Despite documented efficacy of cancer risk reduction in high-risk individuals, underserved and minority individuals have a disproportionate cancer burden and limited access to genetic counseling.

METHODS

A needs assessment survey documented gaps in knowledge and interest in prevention. Satellite clinics were established at two indigent healthcare systems. Cancer genetics CME lectures were conducted and referral guidelines disseminated to clinicians who referred patients for counseling.

RESULTS

An increase in clinician knowledge was demonstrated post-CME and reflected by quality referrals. Eighty-eight percent of patients kept their appointments. In the predominantly Latina(6) (n=77) clinic population, 71.4% were affected with cancer, and 17 mutation positive families were identified. Preliminary data shows a positive impact on patients' motivation and behavior. The majority has expressed satisfaction and reduction in anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates feasibility and acceptability of cancer genetics services in this population, suggesting the potential to reduce cancer morbidity in underserved, high-risk families.