Clinical genetics meets primary care

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

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

Population-based study of the prevalence of family history of cancer: implications for cancer screening and prevention

PURPOSE

Family history assessment is gaining importance as a potential public health tool to help determine susceptibility to common cancers. Population-based data on the prevalence of having a family history of common cancers are scant.

METHODS

We queried survey questions from the National Health Interview Survey, an annual nationwide survey of approximately 36,000 households in the United States, to determine the prevalence of persons reporting one or more first-degree relatives with breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, or ovarian cancer.

RESULTS

Breast cancer was the most common condition noted for family members (7.74% of respondents), followed by lung cancer (7.10%), colorectal cancer (4.96%), prostate cancer (4.68%), and ovarian cancer (1.79%). A family history of cancer was more commonly reported by older persons, whites, women, and high-income groups.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of persons in the United States report having a close family member with cancer, and thus may be eligible for earlier or more aggressive cancer screening services.

Collecting genetic information in primary care: evaluating a new family history tool

BACKGROUND

The family history is a time-honoured method for identifying genetic predisposition. In specialist practice the standard approach is to draw up a family tree based on a genetic pedigree interview, but this is too time-consuming and focused on single gene disorders to be applicable in primary care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the ability of a brief self-administered Family History Questionnaire (FHQ), given to patients when they register with a GP, to identify genetic risk.

METHODS

A comparative study. Informants completed an FHQ at registration, and later participated in a genetic pedigree interview. Two clinical geneticists independently scored results obtained with each instrument. Discrepancies were agreed by consensus. The genetic risks identified by the two instruments were compared.

RESULTS

326 new registrants completed the FHQ, and 121 also completed the genetic interview. 24% of FHQs and 36% of genetic interviews resulted in a score 'higher than population risk'. There was 77% agreement in the scores obtained with the two instruments, with a moderate kappa of 0.52. (95% CI 0.40-0.64). There was 90% agreement in the scores for a family history of premature coronary heart disease (Kappa 0.67; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85). The instruments were equally effective in identifying ethnicity-related risk of common recessive disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

The FHQ identified most informants with genetic risks that are appropriately addressed in primary care-those with a family history of premature coronary heart disease, those warranting specialist referral, and those who might appropriately be offered carrier testing. However, it was less effective in identifying those with a possible Mendelian disorder for whom more information was required.

Timeline: Raising the profile of genetics in primary care

Primary care practitioners recognize that genetics is relevant to their daily practice, for example, for detecting and managing the risk of multifactorial disorders and genetic reproductive risks, and, in future, for targeted drug therapy. However, they lack confidence in their ability to apply genetic approaches. In fact, genetics is already ingrained in current practice, and the development of appropriate guidelines and web-based information resources will help practitioners to make personalized genetic risk assessment a part of holistic, patient-oriented primary health care.

Cancer risk assessment: quality and impact of the family history interview

BACKGROUND

Identification of individuals at high risk for colon and breast cancer requires an adequate family history assessment and can influence cancer screening and genetic testing decisions. Little data exist that evaluate the completeness of the family history interview in primary care.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of 995 new patient visits to 28 primary care physicians evaluating the completeness of the family cancer history for colon or breast cancer. Family history information was evaluated for inclusion of age at diagnosis, degree of kinship, and specification of disease of interest.

RESULTS

Family history information on cancer diagnoses was collected on 679 (68%) of the patients. Specific information regarding the individual affected and the cancer diagnosis was present in 414 (61%) of the records. Affected first-degree relatives were more likely to have their age of cancer diagnosis recorded than second-degree relatives (39%, 95% confidence interval [CI]=34%-44% vs 16%, 95% CI=12%-20%). Age at diagnosis of cancer in first-degree relatives was documented in 51% of colon cancers, 38% of breast cancers, and 27% of ovarian cancers. Only 17% of individuals who meet criteria for early-onset breast cancer genetic testing were referred for genetic services.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate cancer risk assessment using family history information requires age at cancer diagnosis and specification of a cancer diagnosis. Age at diagnosis was frequently missing from family history assessments, which could have a potential impact on identification of high-risk individuals. When family history information does identify high-risk individuals, only the minority are referred for genetic services.

Medical genetics in primary health care

Medical genetics has been at the forefront of developments in medicine for the last 50 years. This progress has mainly benefited industrialized countries. Due to continuing improvements in the socio-economic and health indices in developing nations more than half of them have now reached a stage where it has become relevant for them to initiate and develop medical genetic services. The WHO foresaw this eventuality in 1985 and further recognised the need to develop community based medical genetic services that are relevant to and can be incorporated into primary health care. The need for primary health care based medical genetic services has subsequently also been accepted in industrialized nations. This paper summarises those primary health care based interventions that can be undertaken to ensure the control of genetic disorders and birth defects.

The views of general practitioners on community carrier screening for cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Recent developments in molecular genetics have made it possible to identify carriers of the cystic fibrosis (CF) mutation, regardless of family history, before they have an affected child. Using these techniques, population or 'community' carrier screening can offer informed reproductive choice to individuals and couples who would not otherwise know of their risk of having a CF child.

AIM

This study set out to assess the views of general practitioners (GPs) on community carrier screening for CF and to consider the factors that influence their willingness to offer it themselves.

METHOD

A self-administered questionnaires was sent to all 616 GPs in four areas of North Thames (West) Region.

RESULTS

Two-thirds of respondents indicated that identifying carrier couples to offer genetic counselling before conception was a very important benefit of community carrier screening. Two-thirds felt that general practice was the most appropriate place in which to offer it, and similar proportions that the most appropriate times to do so were when a close relative was diagnosed and when seeking family planning. About half wanted to offer community carrier screening themselves; this was related to experience with CF patients and CF carrier testing, and estimates of the numbers of CF carriers in the practice.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable support among GPs for community carrier screening for CF in general practice, particularly in the context of family planning services. Knowledge and experience of CF increase GPs' willingness to offer it themselves.