A novel approach to increase awareness about hereditary colon cancer using a state cancer registry

Exploring family communication preferences in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a national Canadian survey

BACKGROUND

Individuals affected with cancer predisposition (CPS) syndromes such as BRCA1, BRCA2 or Lynch syndrome (LS) are at an elevated risk of multiple cancers. Identifying high-risk individuals is important if they are to access risk-reducing strategies. Interventions such as risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants or regular colonoscopy for carriers of LS P/LP variants are highly effective and reduce mortality. Despite clear evidence that the identification of at-risk relatives has value, the uptake of cascade testing remains at approximately 50%. It is important to understand strategies and barriers to testing to facilitate communication in families identified as haveing a hereditary cancer syndrome, to improve uptake of counselling and testing.

METHOD

A national online survey of both Canadian probands (the first member in a family to have genetic testing and who were variant positive, regardless of a cancer diagnosis) and their at-risk relatives. Respondents were individuals affected with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and LS. The survey was constructed based on a review of the literature and authors' feedback. Both open and closed-ended questions were used for items on demographic characteristics, risk perception, genetic test results and cancer diagnosis. Items on experiences with hereditary cancer risk communication, communication challenges, preferences and supports required were explored using a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Responses indicated a high level of acceptance for the proband's direct involvement in family communication with the support of a health care provider (67% among the probands given a family letter and 55-57% among those who were not given a family letter). Respondents without a personal history of cancer were more likely to endorse a health care professional's help with family communication compared to those with a personal history of cancer (p = 0.031). Preferences for family member outreach also varied by education level, annual income, marital status and geographic location. Similarities were noted between the probands and relatives on communication outreach preferences.

CONCLUSION

While the family-mediated approach to communication remains the standard across many cancer genetics programs, participants note that additional support is necessary for dissemination of result information among relatives. Because family dynamics and communication vary widely, alternative options that retain the probands' involvement in family communication but add support from a health care provider should be explored.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Initiatives to Scale Up and Expand Reach of Cancer Genomic Services Outside of Specialty Clinical Settings: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

This systematic review aims to (1) characterize strategies used to identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and Lynch syndrome outside of oncology and clinical genetic settings, (2) describe the extent to which these strategies have extended the reach of genetic services to underserved target populations, and (3) summarize indicators of the potential scalability of these strategies.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Investigators searched PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for manuscripts published from October 2005 to August 2019. Eligible manuscripts were those published in English, those that described strategies to identify those at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome, those implemented outside of an oncology or genetic specialty clinic, and those that included measures of cancer genetic services uptake. This study assessed strategies used to increase the reach of genetic risk screening and counseling services. Each study was evaluated using the 16-item quality assessment tool, and results were reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Of the 16 eligible studies, 11 were conducted in clinical settings and 5 in public health settings. Regardless of setting, most (63%, 10/16) used brief screening tools to identify people with a family history suggestive of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome. When reported, genetic risk screening reach (range =11%-100%) and genetic counseling reach (range =11%-100%) varied widely across studies. Strategies implemented in public health settings appeared to be more successful (median counseling reach=65%) than those implemented in clinical settings (median counseling reach=26%). Most studies did not describe fundamental components relevant for broad scalability.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to expand cancer genomic services are limited outside of traditional oncology and genetic clinics. This is a missed opportunity because evidence thus far suggests that these efforts can be successful in expanding the reach of genetic services with the potential to reduce health inequities in access. This review highlights the need for accelerating research that applies evidence-based implementation strategies and frameworks along with process evaluation to understand barriers and facilitators to scalability of strategies with high reach.

Improving Screening Uptake among Breast Cancer Survivors and Their First-Degree Relatives at Elevated Risk to Breast Cancer: Results and Implications of a Randomized Study in the State of Georgia

Women diagnosed with breast cancer at a relatively early age (≤45 years) or with bilateral disease at any age are at elevated risk for additional breast cancer, as are their female first-degree relatives (FDRs). We report on a randomized trial to increase adherence to mammography screening guidelines among survivors and FDRs. From the Georgia Cancer Registry, breast cancer survivors diagnosed during 2000–2009 at six Georgia cancer centers underwent phone interviews about their breast cancer screening behaviors and their FDRs. Nonadherent survivors and FDRs meeting all inclusion criteria were randomized to high-intensity (evidence-based brochure, phone counseling, mailed reminders, and communications with primary care providers) or low-intensity interventions (brochure only). Three and 12-month follow-up questionnaires were completed. Data analyses used standard statistical approaches. Among 1055 survivors and 287 FDRs who were located, contacted, and agreed to participate, 59.5% and 62.7%, respectively, reported breast cancer screening in the past 12 months and were thus ineligible. For survivors enrolled at baseline (N = 95), the proportion reporting adherence to guideline screening by 12 months post-enrollment was similar in the high and low-intensity arms (66.7% vs. 79.2%, p = 0.31). Among FDRs enrolled at baseline (N = 83), screening was significantly higher in the high-intensity arm at 12 months (60.9% vs. 32.4%, p = 0.03). Overall, about 72% of study-eligible survivors (all of whom were screening nonadherent at baseline) reported screening within 12 months of study enrollment. For enrolled FDRs receiving the high-intensity intervention, over 60% reported guideline screening by 12 months. A major conclusion is that using high-quality central cancer registries to identify high-risk breast cancer survivors and then working closely with these survivors to identify their FDRs represents a feasible and effective strategy to promote guideline cancer screening.

Evaluating the role of public health in implementation of genomics-related recommendations: a case study of hereditary cancers using the CDC Science Impact Framework

Public health plays an important role in ensuring access to interventions that can prevent disease, including the implementation of evidence-based genomic recommendations. We used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Science Impact Framework to trace the impact of public health activities and partnerships on the implementation of the 2009 Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Lynch Syndrome screening recommendation and the 2005 and 2013 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing recommendations.The EGAPP and USPSTF recommendations have each been cited by >300 peer-reviewed publications. CDC funds selected states to build capacity to integrate these recommendations into public health programs, through education, policy, surveillance, and partnerships. Most state cancer control plans include genomics-related goals, objectives, or strategies. Since the EGAPP recommendation, major public and private payers now provide coverage for Lynch Syndrome screening for all newly diagnosed colorectal cancers. National guidelines and initiatives, including Healthy People 2020, included similar recommendations and cited the EGAPP and USPSTF recommendations. However, disparities in implementation based on race, ethnicity, and rural residence remain challenges. Public health achievements in promoting the evidence-based use of genomics for the prevention of hereditary cancers can inform future applications of genomics in public health.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone Delivery of BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling Compared With In-Person Counseling: 1-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

The ongoing integration of cancer genomic testing into routine clinical care has led to increased demand for cancer genetic services. To meet this demand, there is an urgent need to enhance the accessibility and reach of such services, while ensuring comparable care delivery outcomes. This randomized trial compared 1-year outcomes for telephone genetic counseling with in-person counseling among women at risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer living in geographically diverse areas.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using population-based sampling, women at increased risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to in-person (n = 495) or telephone genetic counseling (n = 493). One-sided 97.5% CIs were used to estimate the noninferiority effects of telephone counseling on 1-year psychosocial, decision-making, and quality-of-life outcomes. Differences in test-uptake proportions for determining equivalency of a 10% prespecified margin were evaluated by 95% CIs.

RESULTS

At the 1-year follow-up, telephone counseling was noninferior to in-person counseling for all psychosocial and informed decision-making outcomes: anxiety (difference [d], 0.08; upper bound 97.5% CI, 0.45), cancer-specific distress (d, 0.66; upper bound 97.5% CI, 2.28), perceived personal control (d, -0.01; lower bound 97.5% CI, -0.06), and decisional conflict (d, -0.12; upper bound 97.5% CI, 2.03). Test uptake was lower for telephone counseling (27.9%) than in-person counseling (37.3%), with the difference of 9.4% (95% CI, 2.2% to 16.8%). Uptake was appreciably higher for rural compared with urban dwellers in both counseling arms.

CONCLUSION

Although telephone counseling led to lower testing uptake, our findings suggest that telephone counseling can be effectively used to increase reach and access without long-term adverse psychosocial consequences. Further work is needed to determine long-term adherence to risk management guidelines and effective strategies to boost utilization of primary and secondary preventive strategies.

Perspectives on neurological patient registries: a literature review and focus group study

Background

Patient registries represent a well-established methodology for prospective data collection with a wide array of applications for clinical research and health care administration. An examination and synthesis of registry stakeholder perspectives has not been previously reported in the literature.

Methods

To inform the development of future neurological registries we examined stakeholder perspectives about such registries through a literature review followed by 3 focus groups comprised of a total of 15 neurological patients and 12 caregivers.

Results

(1) Literature review: We identified 6,435 abstracts after duplicates were removed. Of these, 410 articles underwent full text review with 24 deemed relevant to perspectives about neurological and non-neurological registries and were included in the final synthesis. From a patient perspective the literature supports altruism, responsible use of data and advancement of research, among others, as motivating factors for participating in a patient registry. Barriers to participation included concerns about privacy and participant burden (i.e. extra clinic visits and associated costs). (2) Focus groups: The focus groups identified factors that would encourage participation such as: having a clear purpose; low participant burden; and being well-managed among others.

Conclusions

We report the first examination and synthesis of stakeholder perspectives on registries broadly with a specific focus on neurological patient registries. The findings of the broad literature review were congruent with the neurological patient and caregiver focus groups. We report common themes across the literature and the focus groups performed. Stakeholder perspectives need to be considered when designing and operating patient registries. Emphasizing factors that promote participation and mitigating barriers may enhance patient recruitment.

Are cancer registries a viable tool for cancer survivor outreach? A feasibility study

PURPOSE

Little is known about cancer survivors' receptivity to being contacted through cancer registries for research and health promotion efforts. We sought to (1) determine breast and colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors' responsiveness to a mailed survey using an academic medical center's cancer registry, (2) assess whether responsiveness varied according to sociodemographic characteristics and medical history, and (3) examine the prevalence and correlates of respondents' awareness and willingness to be contacted through the state cancer registry for future research studies.

METHODS

Stage 0-III breast and CRC survivors diagnosed between January 2004 and December 2009 were identified from an academic medical center cancer registry. Survivors were mailed an invitation letter with an opt-out option, along with a survey assessing sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, and follow-up cancer care access and utilization.

RESULTS

A total of 452 (31.4 %) breast and 53 (22.2 %) CRC survivors responded. Willingness to be contacted through the state cancer registry was high among both breast (74 %) and CRC (64 %) respondents even though few were aware of the registry and even fewer knew that their information was in the registry. In multivariable analyses, tumor stage I and not having a family history of cancer were associated with willingness among breast and CRC survivors, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the use of state cancer registries to contact survivors for participation in research studies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Survivors would benefit from partnerships between researchers and cancer registries that are focused on health promotion interventions.