The current state of cancer family history collection tools in primary care: a systematic review

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.

Expanding Family Health History to Include Family Medication History

The collection of family health history (FHH) is an essential component of clinical practice and an important piece of data for patient risk assessment. However, family history data have generally been limited to diseases and have not included medication history. Family history was a key component of early pharmacogenetic research, confirming the role of genes in drug response. With the substantial number of known pharmacogenes, many affecting response to commonly prescribed medications, and the availability of clinical pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests and guidelines for interpretation, the collection of family medication history can inform testing decisions. This paper explores the roots of family-based pharmacogenetic studies to confirm the role of genes in these complex phenotypes and the benefits and challenges of collecting family medication history as part of family health history intake.

Use of family history taking for hereditary neoplastic syndromes screening in primary health care: A systematic review protocol

Background

Although most neoplasms result from complex interactions between the individual’s genome and the environment, a percentage of cases is particularly due to inherited alterations that confer a greater predisposition to the development of tumors. Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes have a high psychosocial and economic burden, in addition to being characterized by an increased risk for one or more types of cancer, onset of malignancy at a young age, high risk of secondary malignancies, and occurrence in successive generations of the family. Personal and family history, as well as pedigree, may be useful resources to estimate the risk for developing cancer, especially in Primary Health Care settings.

Objective

To identify and evaluate the evidence regarding the impact of using family history as a genomic technology for Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes screening at Primary Health Care.

Methods

This systematic review protocol was elaborated in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). We will include all observational as well as experimental study designs published up to end of July 2022, and studies covering the impact of family history on screening for Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes in primary health care. Qualitative studies, as well as guidelines, reviews, and studies undertaken in hospitals, outpatient clinic, or medical environments will be excluded. Five databases will be searched, including MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and LILACS. Additional sources will also be retrieved, including Clinical trials.gov-NIH, The British Library, and Google Scholar. No restriction to language or date will be employed in the search strategy. Three investigators will select studies independently, perform data extraction, and conduct the critical appraisal of the risk of bias and overall quality of the selected studies according to their designs. Regarding data synthesis, the study characteristics will be summarized and presented in tables and results will be presented according to the study design. A qualitative synthesis of data will also be provided in this systematic review.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review will be the first to identify and critically assess evidence regarding the impact of using family history as a genomic technology for Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes screening in Primary Health Care settings worldwide. This study is expected to provide consistent evidence that will aid the primary care decision-makers regarding hereditary cancer screening, thus helping individuals and families at risk for cancer.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020166211.

Literacy-adapted, electronic family history assessment for genetics referral in primary care: patient user insights from qualitative interviews

BACKGROUND

Risk assessment for hereditary cancer syndromes is recommended in primary care, but family history is rarely collected in enough detail to facilitate risk assessment and referral - a roadblock that disproportionately impacts individuals with healthcare access barriers. We sought to qualitatively assess a literacy-adapted, electronic patient-facing family history tool developed for use in diverse, underserved patient populations recruited in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study.

METHODS

Interview participants were recruited from a subpopulation of CHARM participants who experienced barriers to tool use in terms of spending a longer time to complete the tool, having incomplete attempts, and/or providing inaccurate family history in comparison to a genetic counselor-collected standard. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants about barriers and facilitators to tool use and overall tool acceptability; interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were coded based on a codebook developed using inductive techniques, and coded excerpts were reviewed to identify overarching themes related to barriers and facilitators to family history self-assessment and acceptability of the study tool.

RESULTS

Interviewees endorsed the tool as easy to navigate and understand. However, they described barriers related to family history information, literacy and language, and certain tool functions. Participants offered concrete, easy-to-implement solutions to each barrier. Despite experience barriers to use of the tool, most participants indicated that electronic family history self-assessment was acceptable or preferable in comparison to clinician-collected family history.

CONCLUSIONS

Even for participants who experienced barriers to tool use, family history self-assessment was considered an acceptable alternative to clinician-collected family history. Barriers experienced could be overcome with minor adaptations to the current family history tool.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is a sub-study of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) trial, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03426878. Registered 8 February 2018.

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.

Comparison of a Focused Family Cancer History Questionnaire to Family History Documentation in the Electronic Medical Record

INTRODUCTION

Family health history can be a valuable indicator of risk to develop certain cancers. Unfortunately, patient self-reported family history often contains inaccuracies, which might change recommendations for cancer screening. We endeavored to understand the difference between a patient's self-reported family history and their electronic medical record (EMR) family history. One aim of this study was to determine if family history information contained in the EMR differs from patient-reported family history collected using a focused questionnaire.

METHODS

We created the Hereditary Cancer Questionnaire (HCQ) based on current guidelines and distributed to 314 patients in the Department of Family Medicine waiting room June 20 to August 1, 2018. The survey queried patients about specific cancers within their biological family to assess their risk of an inherited cancer syndrome. We used the questionnaire responses as a baseline when comparing family histories in the medical record.

RESULTS

Agreement between the EMR and the questionnaire data decreased as the patients' risk for familial cancer increased. Meaning that the more significant a patient's family cancer history, the less likely it was to be recorded accurately and consistently in the EMR. Patients with low-risk levels, or fewer instances of cancer in the family, had more consistencies between the EMR and the questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that physicians often make recommendations on incomplete information that is in the EMR, patients might not receive individualized preventive care based on a more complete family cancer history. This is especially true for individuals with more complicated and significant family history of cancer. An improved method of collecting family history, including increasing patient engagement, may help to decrease this disparity.

Using a Chatbot to Assess Hereditary Cancer Risk

PURPOSE

We developed a Web-based chatbot (ItRunsInMyFamily.com) to help individuals collect their family health history (FHx) and determine their risk for hereditary cancer. The purpose of the current study was to assess the characteristics of users and identify opportunities to improve the FHx collection tool.

METHODS

During Family Health History Month (November 2019) we launched an FHx campaign using social media advertisements to raise awareness about hereditary cancers and encourage individuals in the general population to use ItRunsInMyFamily to collect their FHx. Through this campaign, we were able to gather information about users and identify opportunities to improve the tool.

RESULTS

We reached 14,140 users in November 2019 through online marketing campaigns-Facebook, Google, previous ItRuns users, and Web site marketing. Of those, 3,204 completed the full FHx assessment and received risk recommendations. The campaign targeted women between age 40 and 60 years. Users came from 3,783 counties around the United States, 48 unique cancers were reported among probands, and 79 unique cancers were reported among family members, an average of two and a half cancers per family.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that it is possible to gather FHx information at the population level, with high levels of engagement and interest in the topic. There is room for future enhancements and improvements to ItRunsInMyFamily to broaden its reach and encourage individuals to learn about and record their health information.

Leveraging Health Information Technology to Collect Family Cancer History: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Collection of family cancer histories (FCHs) can identify individuals at risk for familial cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the literature on existing strategies whereby providers use information technology to assemble FCH.

METHODS

A systematic search of online databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase) between 1980 and 2020 was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed through the chi-square test (ie, Cochrane Q test) and the inconsistency statistic (I²). A random-effects analysis was used to calculate the pooled proportions and means.

RESULTS

The comprehensive search produced 4,005 publications. Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven information technology tools were evaluated. Eighteen out of 28 studies were electronic surveys administered before visits (18, 64.3%). Five studies administered tablet surveys in offices (5, 17.8%). Four studies collected electronic survey via kiosk before visits (4, 14.3%), and one study used animated virtual counselor during visits (1, 3.6%). Among the studies that use an FCH tool, the pooled estimate of the overall completion rate was 86% (CI, 72% to 96%), 84% (CI, 65% to 97%) for electronic surveys before visits, 89% (CI, 0.74 to 0.98) for tablet surveys, and 85% (CI, 0.66 to 0.98) for surveys via kiosk. Mean time required for completion was 31.0 minutes (CI, 26.1 to 35.9), and the pooled estimate of proportions of participants referred to genetic testing was 12% (CI, 4% to 23%).

CONCLUSION

Our review found that electronic FCH collection can be completed successfully by patients in a time-efficient manner with high rates of satisfaction.

Constructing data-derived family histories using electronic health records from a single healthcare delivery system

BACKGROUND

In order to examine the potential clinical value of integrating family history information directly from the electronic health records of patients' family members, the electronic health records of individuals in Clalit Health Services, the largest payer/provider in Israel, were linked with the records of their parents.

METHODS

We describe the results of a novel approach for creating data-derived family history information for 2 599 575 individuals, focusing on three chronic diseases: asthma, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes.

RESULTS

In our cohort, there were 256 598 patients with asthma, 55 309 patients with CVD and 66 324 patients with diabetes. Of the people with asthma, CVD or diabetes, the percentage that also had a family history of the same disease was 22.0%, 70.8% and 70.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Linking individuals' health records with their data-derived family history has untapped potential for supporting diagnostic and clinical decision-making.

Risk of prostate cancer in relatives of prostate cancer patients in Sweden: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidance for starting ages of screening for first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) to prevent stage III/IV or fatal PCa is lacking in current PCa screening guidelines. We aimed to provide evidence for risk-adapted starting age of screening for relatives of patients with PCa.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this register-based nationwide cohort study, all men (aged 0 to 96 years at baseline) residing in Sweden who were born after 1931 along with their fathers were included. During the follow-up (1958 to 2015) of 6,343,727 men, 88,999 were diagnosed with stage III/IV PCa or died of PCa. The outcomes were defined as the diagnosis of stage III/IV PCa or death due to PCa, stratified by age at diagnosis. Using 10-year cumulative risk curves, we calculated risk-adapted starting ages of screening for men with different constellations of family history of PCa. The 10-year cumulative risk of stage III/IV or fatal PCa in men at age 50 in the general population (a common recommended starting age of screening) was 0.2%. Men with ≥2 FDRs diagnosed with PCa reached this screening level at age 41 (95% confidence interval (CI): 39 to 44), i.e., 9 years earlier, when the youngest one was diagnosed before age 60; at age 43 (41 to 47), i.e., 7 years earlier, when ≥2 FDRs were diagnosed after age 59, which was similar to that of men with 1 FDR diagnosed before age 60 (41 to 45); and at age 45 (44 to 46), when 1 FDR was diagnosed at age 60 to 69 and 47 (46 to 47), when 1 FDR was diagnosed after age 69. We also calculated risk-adapted starting ages for other benchmark screening ages, such as 45, 55, and 60 years, and compared our findings with those in the guidelines. Study limitations include the lack of genetic data, information on lifestyle, and external validation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides practical information for risk-tailored starting ages of PCa screening based on nationwide cancer data with valid genealogical information. Our clinically relevant findings could be used for evidence-based personalized PCa screening guidance and supplement current PCa screening guidelines for relatives of patients with PCa.

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

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

Clinical implementation of an oncology-specific family health history risk assessment tool

BACKGROUND

The presence of hereditary cancer syndromes in cancer patients can have an impact on current clinical care and post-treatment prevention and surveillance measures. Several barriers inhibit identification of hereditary cancer syndromes in routine practice. This paper describes the impact of using a patient-facing family health history risk assessment platform on the identification and referral of breast cancer patients to genetic counselling services.

METHODS

This was a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study completed in breast cancer clinics. English-literate patients not previously referred for genetic counselling and/or gone through genetic testing were offered enrollment. Consented participants were provided educational materials on family health history collection, entered their family health history into the platform and completed a satisfaction survey. Upon completion, participants and their clinicians were given personalized risk reports. Chart abstraction was done to identify actions taken by patients, providers and genetic counsellors.

RESULTS

Of 195 patients approached, 102 consented and completed the study (mean age 55.7, 100 % women). Sixty-six (65 %) met guideline criteria for genetic counseling of which 24 (36 %) were referred for genetic counseling. Of those referred, 13 (54 %) participants attended and eight (33 %) completed genetic testing. On multivariate logistic regression, referral was not associated with age, cancer stage, or race but was associated with clinical provider (p = 0.041). Most providers (71 %) had higher referral rates during the study compared to prior. The majority of participants found the experience useful (84 %), were more aware of their health risks (83 %), and were likely to recommend using a patient-facing platform to others (69 %).

CONCLUSIONS

65 % of patients attending breast cancer clinics in this study are at-risk for hereditary conditions based on current guidelines. Using a patient-facing risk assessment platform enhances the ability to identify these patients systematically and with widespread acceptability and recognized value by patients. As only a third of at-risk participants received referrals for genetic counseling, further understanding barriers to referral is needed to optimize hereditary risk assessment in oncology practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NIH Clinical Trials registry, NCT04639934 . Registered Nov 23, 2020 -- Retrospectively registered.

Prevalence and Correlates of Family Cancer History Knowledge and Communication Among US Adults

Introduction

Knowing one’s family cancer history (FCH) plays an important role in cancer prevention. Communicating health histories with relatives can increase awareness about familial cancer risk and aid health care providers in personalizing cancer prevention recommendations.

Methods

This study used data from the National Cancer Institute’s 2018 Health Information National Trends Survey. We calculated frequencies and weighted population estimates for key FCH communication variables. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated associations between sociodemographic characteristics and FCH communication.

Results

Findings provide the first nationally representative estimates of FCH communication. Less than one-third (31.1%) of the population reported knowing FCH very well, 70.0% had discussed FCH with at least 1 biological relative, 39.0% had discussed FCH with a health care provider, and 22.2% reported being completely confident in completing FCH on medical forms. Findings also identified key demographic factors, including sex, household income, education level, and race and ethnicity, associated with these FCH measures among the US adult population.

Conclusion

Results can be used to target and tailor FCH communication interventions for patients, families, and providers.

At the intersection of precision medicine and population health: an implementation-effectiveness study of family health history based systematic risk assessment in primary care

Background

Risk assessment is a precision medicine technique that can be used to enhance population health when applied to prevention. Several barriers limit the uptake of risk assessment in health care systems; and little is known about the potential impact that adoption of systematic risk assessment for screening and prevention in the primary care population might have. Here we present results of a first of its kind multi-institutional study of a precision medicine tool for systematic risk assessment.

Methods

We undertook an implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic risk assessment of primary care patients in 19 primary care clinics at four geographically and culturally diverse healthcare systems. All adult English or Spanish speaking patients were invited to enter personal and family health history data into MeTree, a patient-facing family health history driven risk assessment program, for 27 medical conditions. Risk assessment recommendations followed evidence-based guidelines for identifying and managing those at increased disease risk.

Results

One thousand eight hundred eighty-nine participants completed MeTree, entering information on N = 25,967 individuals. Mean relatives entered = 13.7 (SD 7.9), range 7–74. N = 1443 (76.4%) participants received increased risk recommendations: 597 (31.6%) for monogenic hereditary conditions, 508 (26.9%) for familial-level risk, and 1056 (56.1%) for risk of a common chronic disease. There were 6617 recommendations given across the 1443 participants. In multivariate analysis, only the total number of relatives entered was significantly associated with receiving a recommendation.

Conclusions

A significant percentage of the general primary care population meet criteria for more intensive risk management. In particular 46% for monogenic hereditary and familial level disease risk. Adopting strategies to facilitate systematic risk assessment in primary care could have a significant impact on populations within the U.S. and even beyond.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT01956773, registered 10/8/2013.

The Importance of Cancer Screening

The burden of cancer in the United States is substantial, providing important opportunity and obligation for primary care clinicians to promote cancer prevention and early detection. Without a system of organized screening to support reminders and follow-up of cancer screening, primary care clinicians face challenges in addressing risk assessment, informed/shared decision making, reminders for screening, and tracking adherence to screening recommendations. Tools exist for collecting information about family history, tracking screening adherence, and reminding patients when they are due for screening, and strategies exist for making cancer prevention and early detection an office policy and delegating roles and responsibilities to office staff.

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.

How genomic information is accessed in clinical practice: an electronic survey of UK general practitioners

Genomic technologies are having an increasing impact across medicine, including primary care. To enable their wider adoption and realize their potential, education of primary health-care practitioners will be required. To enable the development of such resources, understanding where GPs currently access genomic information is needed. One-hundred fifty-nine UK GPs completed the survey in response to an open invitation, between September 2017 and September 2018. Questions were in response to 4 clinical genomic scenarios, with further questions exploring resources used for rare disease patients, direct-to-consumer genetic testing and collecting a family history. Respondents were most commonly GP principals (independent GPs who own their clinic) (64.8%), aged 35-49 years (54%), worked as a GP for more than 15 years (44%) and practiced within suburban locations (typically wealthier) (50.3%). The most popular 'just in time' education source for all clinical genomic scenarios were online primary care focussed resources with general Internet search engines also popular. For genomic continuous medical education, over 70% of respondents preferred online learning. Considering specific scenarios, local guidelines were a popular resource for the familial breast cancer scenario. A large proportion (41%) had not heard of Genomics England's 100,000 genome project. Few respondents (4%) would access rare disease specific Internet resources (Orphanet, OMIM). Twenty-five percent of respondents were unsure how to respond to a direct-to-consumer commercial genetic test query, with 41% forwarding such queries to local genetic services. GPs require concise, relevant, primary care focussed resources in trusted and familiar online repositories of information. Inadequate genetic education of GPs could increase burden on local genetic services.

Effectiveness of interventions to identify and manage patients with familial cancer risk in primary care: a systematic review

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of strategies to identify and manage patients with familial risk of breast, ovarian, colorectal and prostate cancer in primary care to improve clinical outcomes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were searched from January 1980 to October 2017. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI). Primary outcomes were cancer incidence, cancer-related clinical outcomes or the identification of cancer predisposition; secondary outcomes were the appropriateness of referral, uptake of preventive strategies and cognitive and psychological effect. From 11,842 abstracts, 111 full texts were reviewed and three eligible studies (nine articles) identified. Two were cluster RCTs and one NRSI; all used risk assessment software. No studies identified our primary outcomes, with no consistent outcome across the three studies. In one RCT, intervention improved the proportion of genetic referrals meeting referral guidelines for breast cancer (OR 4.5, 95% CI 1.6 to 13.1). In the other RCT, there was no difference in screening adherence between the intervention and control group. However, there was borderline increased risk perception (OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.59) in the subgroup that under-estimated their colon cancer risk. In the NRSI, there was no change in psychological distress in patients at increased familial breast cancer risk, but population risk patients had reduced anxiety after intervention (state anxiety mean change - 3, 95% CI - 5 to - 2). Future studies should have better-defined comparator groups and longer follow-up and assess outcomes using validated tools.

What do cancer patients' relatives think about addressing cancer family history and performing genetic testing in palliative care?

Palliative care may be an opportunity to discuss cancer family history and familial cancer risks with patients' relatives. It may also represent the last opportunity to collect, from dying patients, clinical data and biospecimens that will inform cancer risk assessment and prevention in their surviving relatives. This study aims to explore the perspectives of cancer patients' relatives about cancer heritability, addressing cancer family history, and performing genetic testing in palliative care settings. Thirteen first-degree relatives of cancer patients who died in palliative care participated in the study. Two focus groups were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Two independent coders conducted a thematic content analysis. The themes included: (1) Knowledge of cancer heritability; (2) Experiences and expectations regarding cancer family history discussions, and (3) Views on genetic testing in palliative care patients and DNA biobanking. Participants seemed aware that cancer family history is a potential risk factor for developing the disease. They considered the palliative care period an inappropriate moment to discuss cancer heritability. They also did not consider palliative care providers as appropriate resources to consult for such matters as they are not specialized in this field. Participants welcomed DNA biobanking and genetic testing conducted at the palliative care patients' request. Cancer occurrence within families raises concerns among relatives about cancer heritability, but the palliative care period is not considered the most appropriate moment to address this issue. However, discussions about the risk to cancer patients' relatives might need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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.

Evaluation of an online family history tool for identifying hereditary and familial colorectal cancer

Identifying a hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome or familial CRC (FCC) in a CRC patient may enable the patient and relatives to enroll in surveillance protocols. As these individuals are insufficiently recognized, we evaluated an online family history tool, consisting of a patient-administered family history questionnaire and an automated genetic referral recommendation, to facilitate the identification of patients with hereditary CRC or FCC. Between 2015 and 2016, all newly diagnosed CRC patients in five Dutch outpatient clinics, were included in a trial with a stepped-wedge design, when first visiting the clinic. Each hospital continued standard procedures for identifying patients at risk (control strategy) and then, after a predetermined period, switched to offering the family history tool to included patients (intervention strategy). After considering the tool-based recommendation, the health care provider could decide on and arrange the referral. Primary outcome was the relative number of CRC patients who received screening or surveillance recommendations for themselves or relatives because of hereditary CRC or FCC, provided by genetic counseling. The intervention effect was evaluated using a logit-linear model. With the tool, 46/489 (9.4%) patients received a screening or surveillance recommendation, compared to 35/292 (12.0%) in the control group. In the intention-to-treat-analysis, accounting for time trends and hospital effects, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.58). A family history tool does not necessarily assist in increasing the number of CRC patients and relatives enrolled in screening or surveillance recommendations for hereditary CRC or FCC. Other interventions should be considered.

An online self-test added to colorectal cancer screening can increase the effectiveness of familial cancer risk assessment without increasing distress

AIM

Most people who are at increased familial colorectal cancer (FCRC) risk are not identified, despite the need for enhanced surveillance colonoscopy for effective CRC prevention. An online self-test may enhance this identification. We assessed whether taking an online self-test to identify increased FCRC risk increases anxiety, distress or CRC risk perception in population-based CRC screening.

METHOD

After the precolonoscopy consultation, patients who had a positive immunohistochemical occult faecal blood test (iFOBT+) in population-based CRC screening were invited by email to take an online self-test at home which returned details of family history. Anxiety (STAI-DY), distress (HADS) and CRC risk perception were assessed immediately before and after taking the online self-test and 2 weeks later.

RESULTS

Of 250 participants invited, 177 (71%) completed the online self-test and psychological questionnaires and 153 (61%) completed questionnaires 2 weeks later. The median age was 65 years (range 61-75). The FCRC risk was increased in 17 participants (9.6%). Of these, 12 (6.8%) had a highly increased FCRC risk and may benefit from germline genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. In 7 of 17 participants (40%) the self-test obtained novel information on family history. Anxiety and distress levels were, and remained, below a clinically relevant level. Perception of CRC risk remained unchanged. Most participants (83%) would recommend the online self-test to others.

CONCLUSION

Of those with a iFOBT+, 9.6% had a previously unidentified increasedFCRC risk and require an enhanced surveillance colonoscopy instead of iFOBT. As screening for this risk did not increase anxiety or distress, and was highly acceptable, we recommend adding the online self-test to population-based CRC screening.

What characterizes cancer family history collection tools? A critical literature review

Background

Many tools have been developed for the standardized collection of cancer family history (fh). However, it remains unclear which tools have the potential to help health professionals overcome traditional barriers to collecting such histories. In this review, we describe the characteristics, validation process, and performance of existing tools and appraise the extent to which those tools can support health professionals in identifying and managing at-risk individuals.

Methods

Studies were identified through searches of the medline, embase, and Cochrane central databases from October 2015 to September 2016. Articles were included if they described a cancer fh collection tool, its use, and its validation process.

Results

Based on seventy-nine articles published between February 1978 and September 2016, 62 tools were identified. Most of the tools were paper-based and designed to be self-administered by lay individuals. One quarter of the tools could automatically produce pedigrees, provide cancer-risk assessment, and deliver evidence-based recommendations. One third of the tools were validated against a standard reference for collected fh quality and cancer-risk assessment. Only 3 tools were integrated into an electronic health records system.

Conclusions

In the present review, we found no tool with characteristics that might make it an efficient clinical support for health care providers in cancer-risk identification and management. Adequately validated tools that are connected to electronic health records are needed to encourage the systematic identification of individuals at increased risk of cancer.

Online self-test identifies women at high familial breast cancer risk in population-based breast cancer screening without inducing anxiety or distress

INTRODUCTION

Identifying high familial breast cancer (FBC) risk improves detection of yet unknown BRCA1/2-mutation carriers, for whom BC risk is both highly likely and potentially preventable. We assessed whether a new online self-test could identify women at high FBC risk in population-based BC screening without inducing anxiety or distress.

METHODS

After their visit for screening mammography, women were invited by email to take an online self-test for identifying highly increased FBC risk-based on Dutch guidelines. Exclusion criteria were previously diagnosed as increased FBC risk or a personal history of BC. Anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Dutch Version), distress (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale) and BC risk perception were assessed using questionnaires, which were completed immediately before and after taking the online self-test and 2 weeks later.

RESULTS

Of the 562 women invited by email, 406 (72%) completed the online self-test while 304 also completed questionnaires (response rate 54%). After exclusion criteria, 287 (51%) were included for data analysis. Median age was 56 years (range 50-74). A high or moderate FBC risk was identified in 12 (4%) and three (1%) women, respectively. After completion of the online self-test, anxiety and BC risk perception were decreased while distress scores remained unchanged. Levels were below clinical relevance. Most women (85%) would recommend the self-test; few (3%) would not.

CONCLUSION

The online self-test identified previously unknown women at high FBC risk (4%), who may carry a BRCA1/2-mutation, without inducing anxiety or distress. We therefore recommend offering this self-test to women who attend population-based screening mammography for the first time.

Primary care professionals' perceptions of using a short family history questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Improving access for relatives at-risk of genetic conditions by building referral systems from primary care to genetic services is well recognised.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore primary care professionals' (PCPs) views about using a short, seven-item family history questionnaire (S-FHQ) as an intervention for identifying at-risk relatives of patients with a genetic condition in routine primary care for referral to genetic services.

METHOD

This qualitative study was conducted in the UK in 2013-14. Focus groups were held with 21 PCPs. The normalisation process theory (NPT) was used during analysis as the theoretical lens for exploring potential implementation and sustainability of the intervention.

RESULTS

In principle, participants were supportive of the S-FHQ. They initially expressed enthusiasm for the S-FHQ and identified benefits of its use. However, in discussions about its use in practice, they raised concerns about their expertise to deliver the intervention, implications for their workload, potential duplication with existing roles and services in secondary care, the ethical implications of its use in routine care and its acceptability to patients.

CONCLUSION

This study shows why even a short family history questionnaire, as an intervention for identifying at-risk relatives, is unlikely to be implemented by primary care professionals.

Family health history: an essential starting point for personalized risk assessment and disease prevention

Family health history (FHH) information is well established as a basis for assessing a patient's personal disease risk, but is underutilized for diagnosis and making medical recommendations. Epidemiological and genetic information have heightened the value of FHH to an individual's health. This has motivated the development of new FHH collection tools and strategies for family members, but will require greater awareness and knowledge by both patients and practitioners. FHH will be increasingly important as genomic data become a mainstay of medical diagnostics, since in many cases, a medically important FHH results from lineage-specific genetic variants. The impact of complementary FHH and genomic information will drive the pursuit of personalized and precise targeting of treatments and interventions aimed at maintaining patient health.

Self-reported cancer family history is a useful tool for identification of individuals at risk of hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome at primary care centers in middle-income settings: a longitudinal study

Analysis of cancer family history (CFH) offers a low-cost genetic tool to identify familial cancer predisposition. In middle-income settings, the scarcity of individual records and database-linked records hinders the assessment of self-reported CFH consistency as an indicator of familial cancer predisposition. We used self-reported CFH to identify those families at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes in community-based primary care centers of a low-income Brazilian area. We also evaluated the consistency of the information collected by reassessing CFH five years later. We interviewed 390 families and constructed their pedigrees for genetic cancer risk assessment. We found 125 families affected by cancer, 35.2% with moderate to high risk of familial susceptibility to cancer, a number that represents a relatively high prevalence of potential hereditary cancer syndromes in the overall study sample. Upon reassessment of CFH in 14/20 families that were previously identified as having at least one first-degree and one second-degree relative affected by cancer, and presented moderate to high risk for developing cancer, 90% of initial pedigrees were confirmed. These results demonstrate the reliability of self-reports as a means of early identification of healthy individuals at risk, encouraging the wider use of this method in low- and middle-income primary care settings.

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 and the natural history of colorectal cancer: systematic review

PURPOSE

Family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a known risk factor for CRC and encompasses both genetic and shared environmental risks.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to estimate the impact of family history on the natural history of CRC and adherence to screening.

RESULTS

We found high heterogeneity in family-history definitions, the most common definition being one or more first-degree relatives. The prevalence of family history may be lower than the commonly cited 10%, and confirms evidence for increasing levels of risk associated with increasing family-history burden. There is evidence for higher prevalence of adenomas and of multiple adenomas in people with family history of CRC but no evidence for differential adenoma location or adenoma progression by family history. Limited data regarding the natural history of CRC by family history suggest a differential age or stage at cancer diagnosis and mixed evidence with respect to tumor location. Adherence to recommended colonoscopy screening was higher in people with a family history of CRC.

CONCLUSION

Stratification based on polygenic and/or multifactorial risk assessment may mature to the point of displacing family history-based approaches, but for the foreseeable future, family history may remain a valuable clinical tool for identifying individuals at increased risk for CRC.

The expanding role of primary care in cancer control

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise—from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists—has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care—its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families—are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

Making Personalized Health Care Even More Personalized: Insights From Activities of the IOM Genomics Roundtable

Genomic research has generated much new knowledge into mechanisms of human disease, with the potential to catalyze novel drug discovery and development, prenatal and neonatal screening, clinical pharmacogenomics, more sensitive risk prediction, and enhanced diagnostics. Genomic medicine, however, has been limited by critical evidence gaps, especially those related to clinical utility and applicability to diverse populations. Genomic medicine may have the greatest impact on health care if it is integrated into primary care, where most health care is received and where evidence supports the value of personalized medicine grounded in continuous healing relationships. Redesigned primary care is the most relevant setting for clinically useful genomic medicine research. Taking insights gained from the activities of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health, we apply lessons learned from the patient-centered medical home national experience to implement genomic medicine in a patient-centered, learning health care system.

Preliminary validation of a consumer-oriented colorectal cancer risk assessment tool compatible with the US Surgeon General's My Family Health Portrait

Purpose

This study examines the analytic validity of a software tool designed to provide individuals with risk assessments for colorectal cancer (CRC) based on personal health and family history information. The software is compatible with the U.S. Surgeon General’s My Family Health Portrait.

Methods

An algorithm for risk assessment was created using accepted colorectal risk assessment guidelines, and programmed into a software tool (MFHP). Risk assessments derived from 150 pedigrees using the MFHP tool were compared to “gold standard” risk assessments developed by three expert cancer genetic counselors (GCs).

Results

Genetic counselor risk assessments showed substantial, but not perfect, agreement. MFHP risk assessments for CRC cancer yielded a sensitivity for CRC risk of 81% (95% CI 54–96%) and specificity of 90% (95% CI 83–94%), respectively, when compared to GC pedigree review. The positive predictive values for risk for MFHP was 48% (95% CI 29–68%), while the negative predictive values was 98% (95% CI 93–99%). Agreement between MFHP and GC pedigree review was moderate (Kappa = 0.54)

Conclusions

The analytic validity of the MFHP CRC risk assessment software is similar to other types of screening tools used in primary care. Future investigations should explore the clinical validity and utility of the software in diverse population groups.

Genomics and nurse practitioner practice

The public expects nurse practitioners (NPs) to be informed about scientific advances and adjust practice as disease screening and management evolves with new research findings. No discipline has evolved more quickly than genomics. This article describes six areas in genomics in which NPs should be competent, concluding with three case studies.

The evolution of colorectal cancer genetics-Part 1: from discovery to practice

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an increasing burden on our society. Identifying those who are at the greatest risk and improving triage for treatment will have the greatest impact on healthcare. CRC is a prime paradigm for cancer genetics: the majority of disease results from stages of progression lending itself to prevention by early detection of the pre-disease (neoplastic) state. Approximately 10% represent well defined hereditary cancer syndromes. Hereditary CRC has the added benefit that many are slow growing and family members are armed with the knowledge of potential risk of associated carcinomas and empowerment to reduce the disease burden. This knowledge provides the indication for early endoscopic and/or surgical intervention for prevention or treatment of an entire family cohort. The molecular basis of CRC allows enhanced characterization of carcinomas, leading to targeted therapies.

Psychological impact of family history risk assessment in primary care: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Routine family history risk assessment for chronic diseases could enable primary care practitioners to efficiently identify at-risk patients and promote preventive management strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate patients' understanding and responses to family history risk assessment in primary care.

METHOD

A mixed methods study set in 10 Eastern England general practices. Participants in a family history questionnaire validation study were triaged into population or increased risk for four chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer). Questionnaires completed immediately prior to the family history consultation (baseline) and 4 weeks later (follow-up) assessed the psychological impact, including State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. Semi-structured interviews explored the meaning participants gave to their personal familial disease risk.

RESULTS

Four hundred and fifty-three participants completed both baseline and follow-up questionnaires and 30 were interviewed. At follow-up, there was no increase in anxiety among either group, or differences between the groups [difference in mean change 0.02, 95% confidence interval -2.04, 2.08, P = 0.98]. There were no significant changes over time in self-rated health in either group. At follow-up, participants at increased risk (n = 153) were more likely to have recent changes to behaviour and they had stronger intentions to make changes to diet (P = 0.001), physical activity (P = 0.006) and to seek further information in the future than those at population risk (n = 300; P < 0.001). Using qualitative analysis, five themes were developed representing ways in which participants gave meaning to familial disease risk ('Being reassured', 'Controlling risk', 'Dealing with it later', 'Beyond my control', 'Disbelieving the risk'). The meanings they attributed to increased risk appeared to shape their intention to undertake behaviour change.

CONCLUSION

Routine assessment for familial risk of chronic diseases may be undertaken in primary care without causing anxiety or reducing self-rated health. Patient responses to family history risk assessment may inform promotion of preventive management strategies.

Cancer family history triage: a key step in the decision to offer screening and genetic testing

The Macmillan Cancer Family History Service in Teesside has provided genetic risk assessment for individuals with a personal or family history of cancer since 2004. We sought to examine the effect of risk assessment on patient management, with particular emphasis on referral for clinical screening and selection of families for tertiary genetics assessment. The degree of concordance between the initial risk assignment (using diagnoses reported by the family) and final risk assignment (using confirmed diagnoses) was no greater than 72.3 % in 1,363 breast cancer families; a similar effect was seen in 764 colorectal cancer families (77.3 %). Clinically important risk reassignment occurred at the three key stages in the risk assessment pathway. Overall, genetic risk was reassigned in almost 30 % of colorectal families and 20 % of breast cancer families, resulting in a change in screening recommendation and/or referral for tertiary genetic assessment. Careful, detailed family history assessment, with confirmation of reported diagnoses where it may affect risk assignment, is an important process for the point of view of patient management and resource allocation.

Knowledge, attitudes and referral patterns of lynch syndrome: a survey of clinicians in australia

This study assessed Australian clinicians’ knowledge, attitudes and referral patterns of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome for genetic services. A total of 144 oncologists, surgeons, gynaecologists, general practitioners and gastroenterologists from the Australian Medical Association and Clinical Oncology Society responded to a web-based survey. Most respondents demonstrated suboptimal knowledge of Lynch syndrome. Male general practitioners who have been practicing for ≥10 years were less likely to offer genetic referral than specialists, and many clinicians did not recognize that immunohistochemistry testing is not a germline test. Half of all general practitioners did not actually refer patients in the past 12 months, and 30% of them did not feel that their role is to identify patients for genetic referral. The majority of clinicians considered everyone to be responsible for making the initial referral to genetic services, but a small preference was given to oncologists (15%) and general practitioners (13%). Patient information brochures, continuing genetic education programs and referral guidelines were favoured as support for practice. Targeted education interventions should be considered to improve referral. An online family history assessment tool with built-in decision support would be helpful in triaging high-risk individuals for pathology analysis and/or genetic assessment in general practice.

Development and validation of a family history screening questionnaire in Australian primary care

PURPOSE

We aimed to validate a family history screening questionnaire in an Australian primary care population designed to identify people at increased risk for breast, ovarian, colorectal, and prostate cancer; melanoma; ischemic heart disease; and type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We prospectively validated the questionnaire in 6 general practices in Perth, Western Australia among 526 patients aged 20 to 50 years who responded to a single invitation from their general practice. They completed the 15-item questionnaire before a reference standard 3-generation pedigree was obtained by a genetic counselor blinded to the questionnaire responses. We calculated diagnostic performance statistics for the questionnaire using the pedigree as the reference standard.

RESULTS

A combination of 9 questions had the following diagnostic performance, expressed as value (95% CI), to identify increased risk of any of the 7 conditions: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 84.6% (81.2%-88.1%), 95% sensitivity (92%-98%), and 54% specificity (48%-60%). The combination of questions to detect increased risk had sensitivity of 92% (84%-99%) and 96% (93%-99%) for the 5 and 6 conditions applicable only to men and women, respectively. The specificity was 63% (28%-52%) for men and 49% (42%-56%) for women. The positive predictive values were 67% (56%-78%) and 68% (63%-73%), and the false-positive rates were 9% (0.5%-17%) and 9% (3%-15%) for men and women, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This simple family history screening questionnaire shows good performance for identifying primary care patients at increased disease risk because of their family history. It could be used in primary care as part of a systematic approach to tailored disease prevention.

Patient-reported hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in a primary care practice

Identifying women appropriate for cancer genetic counseling referral depends on patient-reported family history. Understanding predictors of reporting a high-risk family is critical in ensuring compliance with current referral guidelines. Our objectives were to (1) assess prevalence of candidates for BRCA1 and BRCA2 counseling referral in a primary care setting, (2) explore associations with high-risk status and various patient (e.g., race) and family structure (e.g., number of relatives) characteristics, and (3) determine whether high-risk patients had genetic counseling and/or testing. Survey and pedigree data were collected between 2010 and 2012 for 486 Women's Health Clinic patients. Analyses in 2013 investigated perceived cancer risk and worry, family structure, and receipt of genetic counseling. We explored whether these were associated with meeting USPSTF guidelines for genetic counseling referral. Twenty-two (4.5 %) women met the criteria for BRCA referral. Only one of these women had previous genetic counseling, and one reported prior genetic testing. Older women were more likely to meet BRCA referral criteria (P < 0.001). Although perceived risk was higher among high-risk women, 27 % of high-risk women felt their breast cancer risk was "low", and 32 % felt their risk was lower than average. About one in 22 women in primary care may require genetics services for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, but alarmingly, few actually receive these services. Also, a significant proportion do not perceive that they are at increased risk. Educational interventions may be needed for both providers and patients to increase awareness of familial risk and appropriate genetic counseling services.

Quality of family history collection with use of a patient facing family history assessment tool

Background

Studies have shown that the quality of family health history (FHH) collection in primary care is inadequate to assess disease risk. To use FHH for risk assessment, collected data must have adequate detail. To address this issue, we developed a patient facing FHH assessment tool, MeTree. In this paper we report the content and quality of the FHH collected using MeTree.

Methods

Design: A hybrid implementation-effectiveness study. Patients were recruited from 2009 to 2012. Setting: Two community primary care clinics in Greensboro, NC. Participants: All non-adopted adult English speaking patients with upcoming appointments were invited to participate. Intervention: Education about and collection of FHH with entry into MeTree. Measures: We report the proportion of pedigrees that were high-quality. High-quality pedigrees are defined as having all the following criteria: (1) three generations of relatives, (2) relatives’ lineage, (3) relatives’ gender, (4) an up-to-date FHH, (5) pertinent negatives noted, (6) age of disease onset in affected relatives, and for deceased relatives, (7) the age and (8) cause of death (Prim Care31:479–495, 2004.).

Results

Enrollment: 1,184. Participant demographics: age range 18-92 (mean 58.8, SD 11.79), 56% male, and 75% white. The median pedigree size was 21 (range 8-71) and the FHH entered into MeTree resulted in a database of 27,406 individuals. FHHs collected by MeTree were found to be high quality in 99.8% (N = 1,182/1,184) as compared to <4% at baseline. An average of 1.9 relatives per pedigree (range 0-50, SD 4.14) had no data reported. For pedigrees where at least one relative has no data (N = 497/1,184), 4.97 relatives per pedigree (range 1-50, SD 5.44) had no data. Talking with family members before using MeTree significantly decreased the proportion of relatives with no data reported (4.98% if you talked to your relative vs. 10.85% if you did not, p-value < 0.001.).

Conclusion

Using MeTree improves the quantity and quality of the FHH data that is collected and talking with relatives prior to the collection of FHH significantly improves the quantity and quality of the data provided. This allows more patients to be accurately risk stratified and offered appropriate preventive care guided by their risk level.

Trial number

NCT01372553

Integrating genetic and genomic information into effective cancer care in diverse populations

This paper provides an overview of issues in the integration of genetic (related to hereditary DNA) and genomic (related to genes and their functions) information in cancer care for individuals and families who are part of health care systems worldwide, from low to high resourced. National and regional cancer plans have the potential to integrate genetic and genomic information with a goal of identifying and helping individuals and families with and at risk of cancer. Healthcare professionals and the public have the opportunity to increase their genetic literacy and communication about cancer family history to enhance cancer control, prevention, and tailored therapies.

Patient and primary care provider experience using a family health history collection, risk stratification, and clinical decision support tool: a type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness trial

BACKGROUND

Family health history (FHH) is the single strongest predictor of disease risk and yet is significantly underutilized in primary care. We developed a patient facing FHH collection tool, MeTree, that uses risk stratification to generate clinical decision support for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, hereditary cancer syndromes, and thrombosis. Here we present data on the experience of patients and providers after integration of MeTree into 2 primary care practices.

METHODS

This was a Type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness study in 3 community-based primary care clinics in Greensboro, NC. All non-adopted adult English speaking patients with upcoming routine appointments were invited. Patients were recruited from December 2009 to the present and followed for one year. Ease of integration of MeTree into clinical practice at the two intervention clinics was evaluated through patient surveys after their appointment and at 3 months post-visit, and physician surveys 3 months after tool integration.

RESULTS

Total enrollment =1,184. Average time to complete MeTree = 27 minutes. Patients found MeTree: easy to use (93%), easy to understand (97%), useful (98%), raised awareness of disease risk (85%), and changed how they think about their health (86%). Of the 26% (N = 311) asking for assistance to complete the tool, age (65 sd 9.4 vs. 57 sd 11.8, p-value < 0.00) and large pedigree size (24.4 sd 9.81 vs. 22.2 sd 8.30, p-value < 0.00) were the only significant factors; 77% of those requiring assistance were over the age of 60. Providers (N = 14) found MeTree: improved their practice (86%), improved their understanding of FHH (64%), made practice easier (79%), and worthy of recommending to their peers (93%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that MeTree has broad acceptance and support from both patients and providers and can be implemented without disruption to workflow.

The use of family history in primary health care: a qualitative study

The aim of this study is to describe how Belgian family physicians register and use the family history data of their patients in daily practice. Qualitative in-depth semistructured one-to-one interviews were conducted including 16 family physicians in Belgium. These interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed. Recurring themes were identified and compared with findings from the existing literature. All interviewed family physicians considered the family history as an important part of the medical records. Half of the surveyed physicians confirmed knowing the family history of at least 50% of their patients. The data on family history were mainly collected during the first consultations with the patient. The majority of physicians did not use a standardised questionnaire or form to collect and to record the family history. To estimate the impact of a family history, physicians seldom use official guidance or resources. Physicians perceived a lack of time and unreliable information provided by their patients as obstacles to collect and interpret the family history. Solutions that foster the use of family history data were identified at the level of the physician and also included the development of specific instruments integrated within the electronic medical record.

The genomic medicine model: an integrated approach to implementation of family health history in primary care

As an essential tool for risk stratification, family health history (FHH) is a central component of personalized medicine; yet, despite its widespread acceptance among professional societies and its established place in the medical interview, its widespread adoption is hindered by three major barriers: quality of FHH collection, risk stratification capabilities and interpretation of risk stratification for clinical care. To overcome these barriers and bring FHH to the forefront of the personalized medicine effort, we developed the genomic medicine model (GMM) for primary care. The GMM, founded upon the principles of the Health Belief Model, Adult Learning Theory and the implementation sciences, shifts responsibility for FHH onto the patient, uses information technology (MeTree©) for risk stratification and interpretation, and provides education across multiple levels for each stakeholder, freeing up the clinical encounter for discussion around personalized preventive healthcare plans. The GMM has been implemented and optimized as part of an implementation-effectiveness hybrid pilot study for breast/ovarian cancer, colon cancer and thrombosis, and risk for hereditary cancer syndromes in two primary care clinics in NC, USA. This paper describes the conceptual development of the model and key findings relevant for broader uptake and sustainability in the primary care community.