Do Breast Cancer Patients Tested in the Oncology Care Setting Share BRCA Mutation Results with Family Members and Health Care Providers?

Clinical Cancer and Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Test Result-Sharing Behavior: Findings from HINTS 2020

INTRODUCTION

Sharing genetic test results with different stakeholders such as family members, healthcare providers and genetic counselors (HCP/GCs), spouses/partners, and friends is a health behavior of clinical importance in genomic medicine.

METHODS

Using nationally representative population-based data collected from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5, cycle 4), we identified the prevalence and factors associated with genetic test result-sharing behavior for high-risk cancer tests, genetic health risk tests, and ancestry tests within four groups: HCP/GCs, first-degree relatives (FDRs), spouse/partner, and friend/other.

RESULTS

Overall, 68.4% of those who underwent high-risk cancer genetic testing shared their results with FDRs, whereas 89.9% shared with HCP/GCs. In adjusted multivariable analyses, women were nine times more likely than men to share (p = 0.006), and those with a personal history of cancer were less likely to share with HCP/GCs (OR = 0.025, p ≤ 0.001). Of those tested for genetic health risk, 66.5% shared with HCP/GCs, 38.7% with FDRs, 66.6% with a spouse/partner, 12.8% with a friend, and 14.1% did not share results with anyone. Of those who underwent ancestry testing, very few shared results with HCP/GCs (2.6%), whereas modest sharing was reported with FDRs, spouses/partners, and friends.

DISCUSSION

These data add empirical evidence about the population prevalence of genetic information sharing and serve as a metric for public engagement with genetic testing.

Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, providing relatives the opportunity for early detection and prevention of cancer. The current standard is for patients to contact and encourage relatives (patient-mediated contact) to undergo counseling and testing. Direct relative contact by the medical team or testing laboratory has shown promise but is complicated by privacy laws and lack of infrastructure. We sought to compare outcomes associated with patient-mediated and direct relative contact for hereditary cancer cascade genetic counseling and testing in the first meta-analysis on this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42020134276). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer cascade testing. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Among relatives included in the meta-analysis, 48% (95% CI, 38 to 58) underwent cascade genetic counseling and 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) cascade genetic testing. Compared with the patient-mediated approach, direct relative contact resulted in significantly higher uptake of genetic counseling for all relatives (63% [95% CI, 49 to 75] v 35% [95% CI, 24 to 48]) and genetic testing for first-degree relatives (62% [95% CI, 49 to 73] v 40% [95% CI, 32 to 48]). Methods of direct contact included telephone calls, letters, and e-mails; respective rates of genetic testing completion were 61% (95% CI, 51 to 70), 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59), and 48% (95% CI, 45 to 50).

CONCLUSION

Most relatives at risk for hereditary cancer do not undergo cascade genetic counseling and testing, forgoing potentially life-saving medical interventions. Compared with patient-mediated contact, direct relative contact increased rates of cascade genetic counseling and testing, arguing for a shift in the care delivery paradigm, to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

Feasibility of genetic testing for cancer risk assessment programme in Nigeria

Background

A high frequency of BRCA mutations has been established in Nigerian breast cancer (BC) patients. Recently, patients’ and first-degree relatives’ interest have been raised on cancer genetic risk assessment through our awareness activities in Nigeria. This led to the emergence of nurse-led cancer genetic counselling (CGC) and testing aimed at providing standard-of-care for individuals at increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers.

Methods

In June 2018, CGC and testing of patients with BC and ovarian cancer (OC) commenced in collaboration with Color Genomics Inc. for a 30-panel gene testing. Previously trained nurses in CGC at the University College Hospital, Ibadan offered genetic counselling (GC) to willing patients with BC and gynaecological cancer in four out-patient oncology clinics and departments for the pilot study. Consultation consisted of CGC, patient’s history, pedigree and sample collection for genetic testing (GT).

Results

Forty-seven patients – 40 with BC, five with OC and two with endometrial cancer received GC, and all chose to undergo GT. The average age at testing was 48.2 ± 12.1 years. Eight women reported a known family cancer history and there were more perceived benefits than barriers to GT with the patients experiencing the desire for none of their relative to have cancer. Results revealed no mutations in 27 (57.4%), 16 (4.0%) variants of unknown significance and 4 (8.5%) pathogenic mutations.

Conclusion

Personalised cancer care utilises GC and testing for cancer risk assessment towards prevention and early detection in high risk women. The study indicates the necessity of expanded cancer genetic services for integration into patient care and cancer prevention.

"I think that a brief conversation from their provider can go a very long way": Patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators of genetic testing after ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Identify predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting genetic counseling/testing among ovarian cancer patients guided by Green and Kreuter's PRECEDE-PROCEED model.

METHODS

Gynecologic oncology providers (N = 4), genetic counselors (N = 4), and ovarian cancer patients (N = 9) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring participants' knowledge of and experiences with genetic counseling/testing. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive content analysis by two independent raters.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting referral for and uptake of genetic counseling/testing. Predisposing factors included participant's knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes related to genetic counseling/testing. Both patients and providers also cited that insurance coverage and out-of-pocket cost are major concerns for ovarian cancer patients considering genetic testing. Finally, both patients and providers emphasized that genetic counseling/testing would provide additional information to an ovarian cancer patient. While providers emphasized that genetic testing results were useful for informing a patient's personal treatment plan, patients emphasized that this knowledge would be beneficial for their family members.

CONCLUSION

Barriers to genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients exist at multiple levels, including the patient (e.g., knowledge, attitudes), the provider (e.g., workload, availability of services), the institution (e.g., difficulty with referrals/scheduling), and the healthcare system (e.g., insurance/cost). Interventions aiming to increase genetic testing among ovarian cancer patients will likely need to target multiple levels of influence. Future quantitative studies are needed to replicate these results. This line of work will inform specific multilevel intervention strategies that are adaptable to different practice settings, ultimately improving guideline concordant care.

Misinterpretation of Hereditary Breast Cancer Risk and Its Association with Information Sharing Motives among Women at Low Likelihood of Carrying a BRCA1/2 Mutation

PURPOSE

In this brief report, we ask whether women's interpretation of breast cancer risk based on their low likelihood of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation is associated with their information-sharing behavior, and whether misinterpretation is associated with motives for sharing the result.

METHODS

Women in mammography clinics who completed a brief family history assessment and deemed to be at low likelihood of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation were asked to complete a 1-time online survey between June 2016 and January 2017.

RESULTS

One-third (44/148) of women shared their family history screen result with someone in their social network. Result information was shared largely with a first-degree female relative to express feelings of relief (77%, 33/43). There were no differences in likelihood of sharing based on breast cancer risk interpretation. However, women who misinterpreted the implications of the result for general breast cancer risk reported more motives to share the result with their social network than those who accurately interpreted their breast cancer risk.

CONCLUSIONS

As family history-based screening for hereditary breast cancer is broadly implemented, the communication needs of the majority of women who will be unlikely of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation must be considered. The motives of women who misinterpreted the implications of this result for breast cancer risk suggest the possibility that miscommunication could be spread to the broader family network.

"Second-Class Status?" Insight into Communication Patterns and Common Concerns Among Men with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) is a cancer predisposition syndrome that affects both men and women, with more significant cancer risk elevations in women. Dissemination patterns regarding familial genetic risk information among females with HBOC are fairly well defined, but knowledge about how males share this information is limited. We interviewed 21 people primarily Ashkenazi Jewish men who were accrued via listserv email through Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE). Interviews focused on family cancer history, experiences with cancer and genetic testing, motivations to pursue genetic testing and subsequently disclose genetic test results, information-sharing patterns, health care provider response, and participants' emotional support systems. The interviews were transcribed in their entirety, coded, and analyzed based on recurring themes. Eighteen transcripts were used for the analysis. Results were classified into five main themes. Participants (n = 8) were most concerned about cancer risk for their children and female family members, and most (n = 11) mentioned that HBOC provides them increased personal awareness, but has a negligible impact on their life overall (n = 9). Men (n = 11) were interested in a male-focused support group to discuss HBOC and gain knowledge and information. Participants (n = 9) took on active and open communication roles with family members and health care providers. The majority of participants (n = 14) discussed the need for knowledge and awareness among the health care community and general population regarding male HBOC risks. This study serves as a pilot study and provides important and novel insights into psychosocial impacts, communication patterns, encounters with health care professionals, and expressed needs of males with HBOC.

Increasing confidence and changing behaviors in primary care providers engaged in genetic counselling

BACKGROUND

Screening and counseling for genetic conditions is an increasingly important part of primary care practice, particularly given the paucity of genetic counselors in the United States. However, primary care physicians (PCPs) often have an inadequate understanding of evidence-based screening; communication approaches that encourage shared decision-making; ethical, legal, and social implication (ELSI) issues related to screening for genetic mutations; and the basics of clinical genetics. This study explored whether an interactive, web-based genetics curriculum directed at PCPs in non-academic primary care settings was superior at changing practice knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors when compared to a traditional educational approach, particularly when discussing common genetic conditions.

METHODS

One hundred twenty one PCPs in California and Pennsylvania physician practices were randomized to either an Intervention Group (IG) or Control Group (CG). IG physicians completed a 6 h interactive web-based curriculum covering communication skills, basics of genetic testing, risk assessment, ELSI issues and practice behaviors. CG physicians were provided with a traditional approach to Continuing Medical Education (CME) (clinical review articles) offering equivalent information.

RESULTS

PCPs in the Intervention Group showed greater increases in knowledge compared to the Control Group. Intervention PCPs were also more satisfied with the educational materials, and more confident in their genetics knowledge and skills compared to those receiving traditional CME materials. Intervention PCPs felt that the web-based curriculum covered medical management, genetics, and ELSI issues significantly better than did the Control Group, and in comparison with traditional curricula. The Intervention Group felt the online tools offered several advantages, and engaged in better shared decision making with standardized patients, however, there was no difference in behavior change between groups with regard to increases in ELSI discussions between PCPs and patients.

CONCLUSION

While our intervention was deemed more enjoyable, demonstrated significant factual learning and retention, and increased shared decision making practices, there were few differences in behavior changes around ELSI discussions. Unfortunately, barriers to implementing behavior change in clinical genetics is not unique to our intervention. Perhaps the missing element is that busy physicians need systems-level support to engage in meaningful discussions around genetics issues. The next step in promoting active engagement between doctors and patients may be to put into place the tools needed for PCPs to easily access the materials they need at the point-of-care to engage in joint discussions around clinical genetics.

Predispositions to Lymphoma: A Practical Review for Genetic Counselors

This review provides a synopsis for genetic counselors of the major concepts of lymphoma predisposition: genomic instability, immune deficiency, inappropriate lymphoproliferation, and chronic antigen stimulation. We discuss syndromes typifying each of these mechanisms. Importantly, our review of the genetic counseling literature reveals sparse discussion of genetically-based immune-mediated lymphoma predisposition, which we address in depth here. We aim to increase awareness among genetic counselors and colleagues in oncology about familial susceptibility and facilitate critical thinking about lymphoma risk assessment. Clinical application of this knowledge is aided by recommendations for collection of personal and family history to guide risk assessment and testing. Lastly, we include a special discussion of genetic counseling issues including perceptions of the context, nature, and magnitude of lymphoma risk, as well as coping with awareness of susceptibility to lymphoma.

Breast Cancer Survivors' Knowledge of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer following Genetic Counseling: An Exploration of General and Survivor-Specific Knowledge Items

BACKGROUND

Previous studies found genetic counseling increased participants' knowledge about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). However, most explored knowledge gain in unaffected women and the scale most commonly used does not include items that may be more pertinent to breast cancer (BC) survivors.

AIMS

To explore whether genetic counseling impacts BC survivors' knowledge about HBOC and BC survivor-specific information.

METHODS

The National Center for Human Genome Research Knowledge Scale and 5 additional items specific to BC survivors were tested among BC survivors; before genetic counseling (time 1), 2-3 weeks after genetic counseling (time 2), and 6 months following genetic counseling (time 3).

RESULTS

A statistically significant change in knowledge over time was found. Post hoc analyses revealed statistically significant increases in knowledge between time 1 (median = 7.00) and time 2 (median = 10.00; p < 0.005), and between time 1 and time 3 (median = 9.00; p < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge increased following genetic counseling, but the highest total average score at any time was <70% out of 100%. Additional analyses revealed items with low rates of correct response at all three time points, raising several concerns and the consideration of alternative approaches to measuring knowledge.

Impact of a randomized controlled educational trial to improve physician practice behaviors around screening for inherited breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Many primary care physicians (PCPs) are ill-equipped to provide screening and counseling for inherited breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes of an interactive web-based genetics curriculum versus text curriculum for primary care physicians.

DESIGN

Randomized two-group design.

PARTICIPANTS

121 California and Pennsylvania community physicians.

INTERVENTION

Web-based interactive genetics curriculum, evaluated against a control group of physicians who studied genetics review articles. After education, physicians interacted with an announced standardized patient (SP) at risk for inherited breast cancer.

MAIN MEASURES

Transcripts of visit discussions were coded for presence or absence of 69 topics relevant to inherited breast cancer.

KEY RESULTS

Across all physicians, history-taking, discussions of test result implications, and exploration of ethical and legal issues were incomplete. Approximately half of physicians offered a genetic counseling referral (54.6%), and fewer (43.8%) recommended testing. Intervention physicians were more likely than controls to explore genetic counseling benefits (78.3% versus 60.7%, P = 0.048), encourage genetic counseling before testing (38.3% versus 21.3%, P = 0.048), ask about a family history of prostate cancer (25.0% versus 6.6%, P = 0.006), and report that a positive result indicated an increased risk of prostate cancer for male relatives (20.0% versus 1.6%, P = 0.001). Intervention-group physicians were less likely than controls to ask about Ashkenazi heritage (13.3% versus 34.4%, P = 0.01) or to reply that they would get tested when asked, "What would you do?" (33.3% versus 54.1%, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians infrequently performed key counseling behaviors, and this was true regardless of whether they had completed the web-based interactive training or read clinical reviews.

Strategies for recruitment of relatives of BRCA mutation carriers to a genetic testing program in the Bahamas

The prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among unselected breast cancer patients in the Bahamas is 23%. It is beneficial to advise relatives of mutation carriers that they are candidates for genetic testing. Women who test positive are then eligible for preventive interventions, such as oophorectomy. It is not clear how often relatives of women with a mutation in the Bahamas wish to undergo genetic testing for the family mutation. Furthermore, it is not clear how best to communicate this sensitive information to relatives in order to maximize patient compliance. We offered genetic testing to 202 first-degree relatives of 58 mutation carriers. Of 159 women who were contacted by the proband or other family member, only 14 made an appointment for genetic testing (9%). In contrast, among 32 relatives who were contacted directly by the genetic counselor, 27 came for an appointment (84%). This study suggests that for recruitment of relatives in the Bahamas, direct contact by counselor is preferable to using the proband as an intermediary.

Systematic review of educational tools used during the BRCA1/2 genetic testing process

This review describes the characteristics of available educational tools used for BRCA1/2 genetic testing. To identify the tools, we conducted a systematic search in electronic databases, and contacted over 1000 cancer genetics professionals. This review is based on 68 tools from the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, France and Ireland. The tools vary in format and scope depending on the genetic testing phase for which they are intended. We found that a wide diversity of educational materials are available and used for BRCA1/2 genetic testing around the world. However, a substantial number of tools fail to address important aspects of genetic testing.

Communication and technology in genetic counseling for familial cancer

When a cancer predisposing germline mutation is detected in an index case, the presence of the underlying syndrome is confirmed and the potential for predictive testing of at-risk relatives is established. However, the reporting of a positive family history does not routinely lead to communication of information about risk to close, much less distant relatives. This review summarizes information technology utilized to address penetration or 'reach' of knowledge of risk within extended families, including the use of telephone and video counseling to reach distant patients, and anticipate novel internet-based processes for communication between investigators and relatives.