Concerns about cancer risk and experiences with genetic testing in a diverse population of patients with breast cancer

Genetic counseling processes and strategies for racially and ethnically diverse populations: A systematic review

Genetic counseling outcomes are influenced by the processes and strategies used by counselors, yet little is known about how these strategies directly impact patients and populations. In particular, tailoring genetic counseling consultations to best meet the needs of cultural, racial, and ethnically diverse populations has been explored. This review aims to identify genetic counseling strategies tailored for a diversity of racial and ethnic populations with the goal to find ways to improve genetic counseling outcomes. Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases were searched for original research articles published in English that employed genetic counseling processes and strategies to improve genetic counseling outcomes, specifically for participants from ethnically or racially diverse populations. A review of 5300 titles and abstracts resulted in the identification of 36 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Three themes emerged: (1) community involvement in culturally tailoring genetic counseling, (2) creation and use of culturally tailored resources, and (3) modifications to the genetic counseling process. The effectiveness of genetic counseling strategies could not be evaluated due to lack of consistent outcome measures in the articles. The involvement of diverse ethnic and racial populations in developing inclusive genetic counseling tools and practices will help the profession provide better patient care in the future. More research connecting genetic counseling processes and outcomes will help to assess how well these modified approaches meet the needs of diverse populations.

Expanding access to genetic testing for pancreatic cancer

Among individuals with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) 5-10% have a pathogenic germline variant (PGV) in a PDAC susceptibility gene. Guidelines recommend genetic testing among all individuals with PDAC. Additionally, at-risk relatives of PDAC patients benefit from their own genetic education, risk assessment, and testing. Multigene panel testing (MGPT) can identify individuals with inherited cancer risk who can benefit from early cancer surveillance and risk reduction strategies. This manuscript discusses various healthcare delivery models for MGPT including traditional in-person genetic counseling, novel integrated in-person infrastructures, telemedicine genetics care via telephone- or video-visits and direct-to-consumer testing. Barriers and facilitators to care on the individual, provider, and system level are also outlined including specific considerations for historically marginalized communities.

Assessing interventions promoting the uptake of cancer-related genomic services within the Latino community: A scoping review using the RE-AIM framework

Cancer genomic services (CGS) can support genetic risk-stratified cancer prevention and treatment. Racial/ethnic minority groups are less likely to access and utilize CGS compared with non-Hispanic Whites. Little research has described characteristics of interventions targeted at CGS among Latinos. This scoping review aimed to (1) describe interventions promoting uptake of CGS among Latinos in the United States and Latin America, (2) describe intervention adaptations for Latino participants, and (3) summarize intervention implementation factors suggested by reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. We conducted a search in English and Spanish of literature published between 2005 and 2022 across PubMed and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases. Sixteen of 2344 papers met the inclusion criteria of the analysis. Efforts to promote CGS among Latino communities were limited in the US and lower in Latin America. This review highlights the need for in-depth exploration of acculturation-informed interventions and better reporting on implementation factors to enhance their scalability across diverse settings.

How far is too far? Cancer prevention and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved patient populations

Despite dedicated efforts to improve equitable access to cancer care in the United States, disparities in cancer outcomes persist, and geographically underserved patients remain at an increased risk of cancer with lower rates of survival. The critical evaluation of cancer prevention inequities and clinical trial access presents the opportunity to outline novel strategies to incrementally improve bookended access to gynecologic cancer care for geographically underserved patients. Cancer prevention strategies that can be addressed in the rural patient population mirror priorities in the Healthy People 2030 objectives and include increased identification of high risk individuals who may benefit from increased cancer screening and risk reduction, increasing the proportion of people who discuss interventions to prevent cancer, such as HPV vaccination, with their provider, and increasing the proportion of adults who complete evidence based cancer screening. Barriers to accrual to clinical trials for rural patients overlap significantly with the same barriers to obtaining health care in general. These barriers include: lack of facilities and specialized providers; lack of robust health infrastructure; inability to travel; and financial barriers. In this review, we will discuss current knowledge and opportunities to improve cancer prevention initiatives and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved populations with a focus on rurality.

Challenges to genetic testing for germline mutations associated with breast cancer among African Americans

Inequities in preventive cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and inferior cancer outcomes continue to pose challenges across the cancer continuum. While the exact reasons for these inferior outcomes are unknown, multiple barriers to various domains of social determinants of health (SDOH) play a vital role, leading to inequities in cancer care. These include barriers to transportation, housing, and food insecurities, contributing to delays in preventive screening and treatment. Furthermore, aggressive biologies also exist across various racial profiles with accompanying germline mutations. For example, African Americans (AAs) have a higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer subtype and a high prevalence of BRCA1/2 gene mutations, increasing the risk of multiple cancers, warranting high-risk screening for these populations. Unfortunately, other barriers, such as financial insecurities, low health literacy rates, and lack of awareness, lead to delays in cancer screening and genetic testing, even with available high-risk screening and risk reduction procedures. In addition, physicians receive minimal interdisciplinary training to address genetic assessment, interpretation of the results, and almost no additional training in addressing the unique needs of racial minorities, leading to suboptimal delivery of genetic assessment provision resources among AAs. In this review, we discuss the confluence of factors and barriers limiting genetic testing among AAs and highlight the prevalence of germline mutations associated with increased risk of breast cancer among AAs, reflecting the need for multi-panel germline testing as well as education regarding hereditary cancer risks in underserved minorities.

Disparities in Breast Cancer Care-How Factors Related to Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Drive Inequity

Breast cancer survival has increased significantly over the last few decades due to more effective strategies for prevention and risk modification, advancements in imaging detection, screening, and multimodal treatment algorithms. However, many have observed disparities in benefits derived from such improvements across populations and demographic groups. This review summarizes published works that contextualize modern disparities in breast cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and presents potential strategies for reducing disparities. We conducted searches for studies that directly investigated and/or reported disparities in breast cancer prevention, detection, or treatment. Demographic factors, social determinants of health, and inequitable healthcare delivery may impede the ability of individuals and communities to employ risk-mitigating behaviors and prevention strategies. The disparate access to quality screening and timely diagnosis experienced by various groups poses significant hurdles to optimal care and survival. Finally, barriers to access and inequitable healthcare delivery patterns reinforce inequitable application of standards of care. Cumulatively, these disparities underlie notable differences in the incidence, severity, and survival of breast cancers. Efforts toward mitigation will require collaborative approaches and partnerships between communities, governments, and healthcare organizations, which must be considered equal stakeholders in the fight for equity in breast cancer care and outcomes.

Integration of Genetic Testing and Counseling in Patients With Breast Cancer in a Large, Multisite Community-Based Practice

PURPOSE

Despite data-driven consensus recommendations, there remains significant nonadherence to genetic screening and testing. More than 300,000 patients are diagnosed with breast cancer annually, with one third of these estimated to be eligible for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)/BRCA testing following National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Only 35% of eligible patients are referred for genetic counseling.

METHODS

The goal of this project was to apply NCCN guidelines for germline genetic testing to all new patients with breast cancer within a large community oncology practice to improve HRD/BRCA testing. Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology was used, and cycles were built on a proven teaching infrastructure. In cycle 1, providers were educated and directed to use electronic health record (EHR) templates in the setting of an initial diagnosis visit and treatment planning. Discreet data fields were created in the EHR during cycle 2 to streamline and automate the process. Appropriate patients were referred to the genetics team for further evaluation, counseling, and testing. Adherence to the plan was maintained and measured using data analytic reports and chart audits.

RESULTS

Of the 1,203 patients with breast cancer eligible for inclusion, 1,200 (99%) were screened according to NCCN guidelines. Of the screened patients, 631 (52.5%) met the referral/testing criteria. In total, 585 (92.7%) of the 631 were referred to a genetic specialist. Seven percent had previous referrals. A total of 449 (71%) patients were acceptable to genetics referral while 136 (21.5%) patients refused.

CONCLUSION

The implemented methods of education, NCCN guidelines imbedded within provider notes, and discreet data fields in the EHR have proven to be highly effective in screening appropriate patients and ordering subsequent genetic referrals.

Mode of delivery preference in prenatal genetic counseling between English- and Spanish-speaking patients at two US medical institutions

Although Hispanic individuals are at an increased risk for various genetic conditions, they have lower uptake of genetic counseling and genetic testing. Virtual appointments have many advantages that may help Spanish-speaking patients access genetic services more readily. Despite these benefits, there are limitations that may make them less attractive options for these individuals. This study aimed to determine if satisfaction with genetic counseling or mode of delivery preference differs between English- and Spanish-speaking individuals who have had a virtual prenatal genetic counseling session. Participants were recruited from prenatal genetic counseling clinics at Indiana University Health and Eskenazi Hospital. A REDCap survey was sent to all eligible participants. Survey questions included mode of delivery preference for future genetic counseling sessions (virtual versus in-person), the validated Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale, and questions inquiring about the importance of various factors affecting mode of delivery preference. Spanish-speaking individuals preferred future visits to be in-person, while English-speaking individuals preferred future visits to be virtual (Fisher's exact p = 0.003). Several factors were associated with these preferences, including waiting time, ability to leave/take off work for an appointment, length of session, childcare arrangements, and people attending the appointment (all p < 0.05). Both language groups reported similar mean satisfaction with the genetic counseling provided during their previous virtual appointments (p = 0.51). This study found that certain aspects of virtual genetic counseling appointments make them less appealing to Spanish-speaking individuals. Making virtual genetic counseling appointments more appealing while continuing to offer in-person appointments may help Spanish-speaking individuals receive necessary genetics services. Continued research into disparities and barriers to telemedicine for Spanish-speaking patients is necessary to increase access to this service delivery model for genetic counseling.

Advancing health equity: A qualitative study assessing barriers and facilitators of implementing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk screening tools in community-based organizations

Genetic counseling and testing (GCT) inform cancer management for persons at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Community-based organizations (CBOs) may play a role in identifying at-risk Latinx individuals to connect them to GCT but data are lacking. Two academic centers and their four CBO partners planned to implement a validated questionnaire for HBOC risk screening ("HBOC risk screening tool"). This study aimed to assess CBO's preferences for HBOC risk screening tools, as well as the barriers and facilitators anticipated for future implementation. Pre-implementation focus groups were conducted with CBO's staff. Discussions centered on current practices to identify and refer at-risk patients. During the discussion, staff were asked to select one out of five validated HBOC risk screening tools to implement and to discuss anticipated barriers/facilitators for implementation. The four focus groups were coded and qualitative analyzed following the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Health Equity domains. All CBOs chose the Family History Screen 7 (FHS-7). Participants (N = 35) highlighted how the FHS-7 was easy to adapt to better fit the target population and changing guidelines. They had positive attitudes toward implementing the screening tool, stressed how the culture of the organization positioned them to reach the target population, and noted barriers in different CFIR domains (e.g., low knowledge about HBOC and GCT referrals; scarce available resources). Participants pointed to barriers related to health equity domains including limited access to GCT and follow-up care for uninsured and underinsured populations, challenges obtaining accurate family history, and immigration-related barriers. CBOs highlighted the importance of partnering with other stakeholders to overcome barriers. Findings emphasize the need to develop multi-level implementation strategies to overcome barriers and leverage facilitators. This study can inform the development of implementation toolkits for CBOs to implement HBOC screening tools to advance health equity.

Design and pilot implementation of the Achieving Cancer Equity through Identification, Testing, and Screening (ACE-ITS) program in an urban underresourced population

INTRODUCTION

The Achieving Cancer Equity through Identification, Testing, and Screening (ACE-ITS) program is a community-engaged framework to improve mammography maintenance and rates of genetic risk assessment, counseling, and testing using a multilevel approach that enhances patient navigation through mobile health and community education.

METHODS

The ACE-ITS program is based on the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities research framework focused on the individual (genetic testing, screening navigation) and community (community-based breast health education) levels and targeted to the biological- (genetic risk), behavioral- (mammography screening), sociocultural- (underserved Black and Hispanic women), and the health care system (patient navigation, automated text messages)-related domains. We further integrate the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model to describe our program implementation.

RESULTS

In collaboration with genetic counselors and community partners, we created educational modules on mammography maintenance and genetic counseling/testing that have been incorporated into the navigator-led community education sessions. We also implemented a universal genetic risk assessment tool and automated text message reminders for repeat mammograms into our mammography navigation workflow. Through the ACE-ITS program implementation, we have collaboratively conducted 22 educational sessions and navigated 585 women to mammography screening over the 2020-2021 calendar years. From January to December 2021, we have also conducted genetic risk assessment on 292 women, of whom 7 have received genetic counseling/testing.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe a multilevel, community-engaged quality improvement program designed to reduce screening-related disparities in Black and Hispanic women in our catchment area.

Risk management actions following genetic testing in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing can identify cancer risk early, enabling prevention and early detection. We describe use of risk management interventions following genetic testing in the Cancer Health Assessment Reaching Many (CHARM) study. CHARM assessed risk and provided genetic testing to low income, low literacy, and other underserved populations that historically face barriers to accessing cancer genetic services.

METHODS

CHARM was implemented in Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) and Denver Health (DH) between 2018 and 2020. We identified post-testing screening (mammography, breast MRI, colonoscopy) and surgical (mastectomy, oophorectomy) procedures using electronic health records. We examined utilization in participants who did and did not receive actionable risk management recommendations from study genetic counselors following national guidelines.

RESULTS

CHARM participants were followed for an average of 15.4 months (range: 0.4-27.8 months) after results disclosure. Less than 2% (11/680) received actionable risk management recommendations (i.e., could be completed in the initial years following testing) based on their test result. Among those who received actionable recommendations, risk management utilization was moderate (54.5%, 6/11 completed any procedure) and varied by procedure (mammogram: 0/3; MRI: 2/4; colonoscopy: 4/5; mastectomy: 1/5; oophorectomy: 0/3). Cancer screening and surgery procedures were rare in participants without actionable recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Though the number of participants who received actionable risk management recommendations was small, our results suggest that implementing CHARM's risk assessment and testing model increased access to evidence-based genetic services and provided opportunities for patients to engage in recommended preventive care, without encouraging risk management overuse.

Medical interpreter-mediated genetic counseling for Spanish preferring adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome

The objective of this study was to identify interpretation challenges specific to exome sequencing and errors of potential clinical significance in the context of genetic counseling for adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome. Thirty transcripts of interpreter-mediated telephone results disclosure genetic counseling appointments were coded for errors by bilingual researchers, and the coders applied an overall rating to denote the degree to which the errors interfered with communication overall. Genetic counselors reviewed a subset of errors flagged for potential clinical significance to identify those likely to have clinical impact. Qualitative interviews with 19 interpreters were analyzed to elucidate the challenges they face in interpreting for genetic counseling appointments. Our analysis identified common interpretation errors such as raising the register, omissions, and additions. Further, we found errors specific to genetic counseling concepts and content that appeared to impact the ability of the genetic counselor to accurately assess risk. These errors also may have impacted the patient's ability to understand their results, access appropriate follow-up care, and communicate with family members. Among interpreters' strengths was the use of requests for clarification; in fact, even more use of clarification would have been beneficial in these encounters. Qualitative interviews surfaced challenges stemming from the structure of interpreter work, such as switching from medical and nonmedical interpretations without substantial breaks. Importantly, while errors were frequent, most did not impede communication overall, and most were not likely to impact clinical care. Nevertheless, potentially clinically impactful errors in communication of genetics concepts may contribute to inequitable care for limited English proficient patients and suggest that additional training in genetics and specialization in healthcare may be warranted. In addition, training for genetic counselors and guidance for patients in working effectively with interpreters could enhance interpreters' transmission of complex genetic concepts.

Latinx attitudes, barriers, and experiences with genetic counseling and testing: A systematic review

As genetics is increasingly used across clinical settings, there is a need to understand the impact and experiences of diverse patients. This review systematically examined research literature on Latinx experiences with genetic counseling and genetic testing (GC/GT) in the United States, synthesizing key themes and knowledge gaps pertaining to both patient experience and hypothetical scenarios. Findings were based on a systematic search, inclusion, and thematic analysis of 81 empirical peer-reviewed articles published from January 1990 to July 2019 pertaining to Latinx populations and GC/GT. Studies most commonly addressed Latinas' perspectives on GC/GT in prenatal settings or for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Costs, referrals, and communication were significant barriers to accessing genetic services for many Latinx patients, particularly those with low English proficiency (LEP). Studies highlighted difficulties accessing and communicating in healthcare settings, and how medical context and prior experience with healthcare workers and institutions influenced GC/GT decision-making. Providers' implicit biases about Latinx patients negatively impacted their care and impeded communication. Despite low awareness of cancer GT, Latinx patients often reported interest in learning more about GC/GT or unmet needs for GT discussion and provider involvement. This systematic review identified areas where providers can take action to improve Latinx experiences with GC/GT. Clinicians should elicit and respond to patient preferences about shared decision-making. For patients with low numeracy or LEP, providers should consider tailored educational and communication techniques. Most studies focused on HBOC and prenatal testing, and Latinx patients are heterogeneous, leaving many research questions about Latinx experience with GT/GC in other clinical areas.

Cancer screening and breast cancer family history in Spanish-speaking Hispanic/Latina women in California

Background

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the U.S. and the leading cause of cancer death among Hispanics/Latinas (H/L). H/L are less likely than Non-H/L White (NHW) women to be diagnosed in the early stages of this disease. Approximately 5-10% of breast cancer can be attributed to inherited genetic mutations in high penetrance genes such as BRCA1/2. Women with pathogenic variants in these genes have a 40-80% lifetime risk of breast cancer. Past studies have shown that genetic counseling can help women and their families make informed decisions about genetic testing and early cancer detection or risk-reduction strategies. However, H/L are 3.9-4.8 times less likely to undergo genetic testing than NHW women. We developed a program to outreach and educate the H/L community about hereditary breast cancer, targeting monolingual Spanish-speaking individuals in California. Through this program, we have assessed cancer screening behavior and identified women who might benefit from genetic counseling in a population that is usually excluded from cancer research and care.

Materials and Methods

The "Tu Historia Cuenta" program is a promotores-based virtual outreach and education program including the cities of San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. Participants responded to three surveys: a demographic survey, a breast cancer family history survey, and a feedback survey. Survey responses were described for participants and compared by area where the program took place using chi-square, Fisher exact tests, and t tests. Multinomial logistic regression models were used for multivariate analyses.

Results and Conclusion

We enrolled 1042 women, 892 completed the cancer family history survey and 62 (7%) provided responses compatible with referral to genetic counseling. We identified 272 women (42.8% ages 40 to 74 years) who were due for mammograms, 250 women (24.7% ages 25 to 65 years) due for Papanicolaou test, and 189 women (71.6% ages 50+) due for colorectal cancer screening. These results highlight the need of additional support for programs that spread awareness about cancer risk and facilitate access to resources, specifically within the H/L community.

Provider discussion of genetic counseling among high-risk Spanish-preferring Latina breast cancer survivors

Among high-risk breast cancer (BC) survivors, genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) may inform cascade testing and risk management. Compared to non-Hispanic White BC survivors, Spanish-preferring Latina BC survivors are less likely to report discussing GC with a healthcare provider. However, few studies have examined Latinas' experiences with GC/GT, particularly outside of the mainland USA. This study aimed to compare frequency of provider discussion of GC between Spanish-preferring Latina BC survivors living in Florida (FL) and Puerto Rico (PR). We conducted secondary data analysis of baseline assessments from a randomized pilot of an educational intervention for Spanish-preferring Latina BC survivors. Participants (N = 52) were GC/GT-naive, but met clinical criteria for GC/GT referral. Participants self-reported sociodemographic, clinical, and cultural variables, including previous provider discussion of GC. Descriptive statistics characterized frequency of GC discussion. Logistic regression examined the relationships between sociodemographic, clinical, and cultural characteristics and GC discussion. Only 31% of participants reported previous GC discussion. More participants from PR reported having GC discussions (43% vs. 21% in the mainland USA). In multivariable analyses, greater likelihood of GC discussion was associated with PR (vs. mainland USA) residence (odds ratio [OR] = 6.00, p = .03), older age at baseline (OR = 1.19, p = .04), and younger age at BC diagnosis (OR = 0.80, p = .03). Few high-risk Spanish-preferring Latina BC survivors in the mainland USA and PR had discussed GC with their providers. These results highlight a gap in the implementation of evidence-based genetics guidelines. Provider-directed interventions may be needed to increase uptake of GC/GT among Latina BC survivors.

Interest in Cancer Predisposition Testing and Carrier Screening Offered as Part of Routine Healthcare Among an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Young Women

Sequencing technologies can inform individuals’ risks for multiple conditions, supporting population-level screening approaches. Prior research examining interest in genetic testing has not generally examined the context of population-based approaches offered in routine healthcare or among ethnically diverse populations. Cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening could be offered broadly to women of reproductive age. This study therefore examined interest in these tests when offered as part of routine care, and predictors of interest, among an ethnically diverse sample of women aged 20–35. We conducted an online English-language survey of 450 women; 39% identified as Latina. We examined predictors of interest for two outcomes, interest in testing in the next year and level of interest, in multivariable logistic regression models and stratified analyses by Latina ethnicity. More than half of respondents reported being interested in cancer predisposition testing (55%) and carrier screening (56%) in the next year; this did not differ by ethnicity. About 26% reported being very interested in cancer predisposition testing and 27% in carrier screening. Latina respondents (32%) were more likely to be very interested in cancer predisposition testing than non-Latina respondents (22%; p < 0.03). In multivariable models, having higher worry about genetic risks, higher genetic knowledge, and higher perceived importance of genetic information were associated with higher interest across multiple models. Predictors of interest were generally similar by ethnicity. Our findings show substantial interest in both cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening among young women as part of routine healthcare with similar interest between Latina and non-Latina women. Efforts to broadly offer such testing could be important in improving access to genetic information. It will be critical to develop tools to help healthcare providers communicate about genetic testing and to address the needs of those who have less prior knowledge about genetics to support informed decision making.

Uptake of genetic counseling and testing in a clinic-based population of women with breast cancer

Background

The study was conducted to evaluate racial differences in referral and uptake of genetic counseling (GC) in a clinic‐based population of women with breast cancer.

Methods

Medical records of 150 breast cancer patients at the Karmanos Cancer Institute were reviewed to determine eligibility for GC according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, GC referral rates, and appointment completion rates. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between demographic and clinical factors and GC eligibility and referral.

Results

The mean age at diagnosis was 57.1 (SD 12.6) and 66% of the women were Black. There were 91 women (60.7%) eligible for GC and of those, 54 (61.4%) were referred. After multivariable analyses, factors associated with reduced eligibility were older age at diagnosis (OR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.87,0.95]) and Black race (OR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.15, 0.96]). After additional multivariable analysis, eligibility was associated with an increased likelihood of referral (OR = 5.97, 95% CI [2.29, 15.56]), however, Medicare versus private insurance was associated with a lower likelihood for referral (OR = 0.32, 95% CI [0.12–0.80]. Of those referred, 49 (76.6%) completed an appointment, and 47 had genetic testing. Women with Medicare were also less likely to complete an appointment. Race had no impact on referral or appointment completion.

Conclusions

There were no racial differences in GC referral or appointment completion in a clinic‐based sample of women with breast cancer. Further interventions are needed to promote increased referral and appointment completion for women with breast cancer who are eligible for GC.

An overview of genetic services delivery for hereditary breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women worldwide, with approximately 5-10% of cases attributed to high penetrance hereditary breast cancer (HBC) genes. The tremendous advances in precision oncology have broadened indications for germline genetic testing to guide both systemic and surgical treatment, with increasing demand for cancer genetic services. The HBC continuum of care includes (1) identification, access, and uptake of genetic counseling and testing; (2) the delivery of genetic counseling and testing services; and (3) initiation of guideline-adherent follow-up care and family communication of results. Challenges to delivering care on the HBC care continuum include factors such as access to services, cost, discrimination and bias, and lack of education and awareness, which can be mitigated through implementing a multi-level approach. This includes strategies such as increasing awareness and utilization of genetic counseling and testing, developing new methods to meet the growing demand for genetic services, and improving the uptake of follow-up care by increasing patient and provider awareness of the management recommendations.

Factors Affecting Genetic Consultation in Adolescent and Young Adult Patients With Sarcoma

BACKGROUND

Given a link between sarcomas and hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes, including Li-Fraumeni syndrome, the consideration for genetic counseling is recommended for all adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients diagnosed with sarcoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate factors influencing genetic consultations in AYA patients with sarcoma at the University of Wisconsin (UW).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on AYA patients diagnosed with sarcoma between the ages of 15 and 39 years who were seen at least once between 2015 to 2019 at UW. Our chart review identified discussions regarding genetics, referrals to genetics, genetic consultations, and results of genetic testing. Variables hypothesized to affect patient referrals for genetic consultation were identified a priori. Descriptive statistical methods and a univariate analysis were used to identify patient characteristics associated with genetic counseling referral.

RESULTS

We identified 87 AYA patients with sarcoma. Only 19 (22%) of these patients had documentation of a discussion about genetics, 15 (17%) of whom were subsequently referred for genetic consultation. Of these 15 patients, 9 (60%) were seen in consultation. All 9 patients seen by genetics underwent genetic testing, with 4 (44%) of these patients having identified heritable cancer predisposition syndromes. Likelihood for genetics referral was linked most strongly to documented genetics discussion with an oncology provider (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the recommendation for consideration for genetic counseling in AYA patients with sarcoma, <25% of such patients in our study had a documented discussion about genetics. Supporting this need, all referred patients met criteria for genetic testing, and 44% of tested patients were found to have a heritable cancer predisposition syndrome. These data support the initial conversation by a provider as critical to genetic referral and suggest the need for more specific national recommendations for the genetic evaluation of all AYA patients with sarcoma.

Genetic Counseling and Testing in African American Patients With Breast Cancer: A Nationwide Survey of US Breast Oncologists

PURPOSE

To determine if physicians' self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding genetic counseling and testing (GCT) vary by patients' race.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide 49-item survey among breast oncology physicians in the United States. We queried respondents about their own demographics, clinical characteristics, knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceived barriers in providing GCT to patients with breast cancer.

RESULTS

Our survey included responses from 277 physicians (females, 58.8%; medical oncologists, 75.1%; academic physicians, 61.7%; and Whites, 67.1%). Only 1.8% indicated that they were more likely to refer a White patient than refer an African American patient for GCT, and 66.9% believed that African American women with breast cancer have lower rates of GCT than White women. Regarding perceived barriers to GCT, 63.4% of respondents indicated that African American women face more barriers than White women do and 21% felt that African American women require more information and guidance during the GCT decision-making process than White women. Although 32% of respondents indicated that lack of trust was a barrier to GCT in all patients, 58.1% felt that this was a greater barrier for African American women (P < .0001). Only 13.9% believed that noncompliance with GCT is a barrier for all patients, whereas 30.6% believed that African American women are more likely than White women to be noncompliant (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that racial differences exist in oncology physicians' perceived barriers to GCT for patients with breast cancer. This nationwide survey will serve as a basis for understanding physicians' determinants of GCT for African American women and highlights the necessity of education and interventions to address bias among physicians. Awareness of such physician biases can enable further work to address inequities, ultimately leading to improved GCT equity for African American women with breast cancer.

Development and pilot testing of a training for bilingual community education professionals about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer among Latinas: ÁRBOLES Familiares

Cancer health disparities remain a significant problem in the USA, compounded by lack of access to care, language barriers and systemic biases in health care. These disparities are particularly evident in areas such as genetics/genomics. For example, Latinas at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have extremely low rates of genetic counseling/testing. Long-standing barriers and inequities in access to services such as genetic counseling and testing require innovative solutions. One solution can involve training community outreach and education professionals (CORE-Ps) to bridge the gap between underserved communities and genetic specialists. We sought to develop and pilot test a training program for English-Spanish bilingual CORE-Ps to reduce disparities in access to and uptake of genetic services among Latino populations. Guided by Adult Learning Theory and with input from multiple stakeholders, we developed ÁRBOLES Familiares (Family Trees), an in-person and online training program for bilingual CORE-Ps to facilitate identification, referral, and navigation of Latinas to genetic counseling/testing. We conducted a pilot test of 24 CORE-Ps recruited from across the United States and assessed knowledge, genetic literacy, and self-efficacy at baseline and follow-up. At follow-up, participants in the pilot with complete baseline and follow-up data (N = 15) demonstrated significant improvements in HBOC knowledge, genetic literacy, self-efficacy and reports of fewer barriers to identify/navigate Latinas (ps < .05). Qualitative assessment identified ways to improve the training curriculum. Pilot results suggest ÁRBOLES is a promising approach for training CORE-Ps to identify and refer high-risk Latinas to genetic services. Next steps involve further refinement of ÁRBOLES, development of an online toolkit, and adaptation for virtual delivery.

Uptake and acceptability of a mainstreaming model of hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer

Purpose:

To address demands for timely germline information to guide treatments, we evaluated experiences of patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer with a mainstreaming genetic testing model wherein multigene panel testing was ordered by oncologists with standardized pre-test patient education, and genetic counselors delivered results and post-test genetic counseling via telephone.

Methods:

Among 1203 eligible patients, we conducted a prospective single-arm study to examine patient uptake and acceptability (via self-report surveys at baseline and three-weeks and three-months following result return) of this mainstreaming model.

Results:

Only 10% of eligible patients declined participation. Among 1054 tested participants, 10% had pathogenic variants (PV), 16% had variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and 74% had no variant identified (NV). Participants reported high initial acceptability, including high satisfaction with their testing decision. Variability over time in several outcomes existed for participants with PV or NV: Those with NV experienced a temporary increase in depression (p_Time<0.001; p_Time2<0.001), and those with PV experienced a small increase in genetic testing distress (p=0.03). Findings suggested that result type, sex, and cancer type were also associated with outcomes including clinical depression and uncertainty.

Conclusion:

This mainstreaming model may offer a feasible approach for extending access to germline genetic information.

Knowledge and perceptions of BRCA1/2 genetic testing and needs of diverse women with a personal or family history of breast cancer in South Florida

The vast majority of (BRCA1/2) genetic testing has been conducted in White women, in particular Ashkenazi Jewish women, with limited information available for Black and Hispanic women. Understanding perspectives of those who are underserved is critical to developing interventions to support inclusive approaches to genetic testing. This qualitative study explored knowledge and perceptions of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among diverse women in South Florida. We also explored participants' information needs. Convenience sampling was used to recruit a diverse group of 15 women with a personal or family history of breast cancer. We conducted semi-structured interviews and used grounded theory method to analyze the data. Five themes were identified: (1) lacking awareness and knowledge of BRCA1/2 genetic testing and results among Black women, (2) perceiving BRCA1/2 genetic testing as beneficial to themselves and a way to be proactive about cancer risk, (3) perceiving BRCA1/2 genetic testing as beneficial to family members, (4) interactions with healthcare providers and the healthcare system that shape genetic testing experiences, and (5) information needs for reducing cancer risk and promoting health. Our findings suggest that diverse underserved women perceived genetic testing as beneficial to themselves and family members. Women needed more information about the BRCA genes and genetic testing, prevention strategies, and the latest breast cancer research. Healthcare providers, particularly nurse practitioners, need to engage diverse high-risk women in discussions about their cancer risk, address unmet information needs, and, in particular, educate Black women about the benefits of pursuing genetic testing.

A pilot randomized trial of an educational intervention to increase genetic counseling and genetic testing among Latina breast cancer survivors

Latinas are less likely to participate in genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) than non-Hispanic Whites. A multisite, randomized pilot study tested a culturally targeted educational intervention to increase uptake of GC/GT among Latina breast cancer (BC) survivors (N = 52). Participants were recruited in Tampa, FL and Ponce, PR and randomized to: (a) fact sheet about BC survivorship (control) or (b) a culturally targeted educational booklet about GC/GT (intervention). Participants in the intervention condition were also offered no-cost telephone GC followed by free GT with mail-based saliva sample collection. Participants self-reported hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) knowledge and emotional distress at baseline and 1- and 3-month follow-ups. We used logistic regression to examine differences in GC/GT uptake by study arm (primary outcome) and repeated measures ANOVA to examine the effects of study arm and time on HBOC knowledge and emotional distress (secondary outcomes). Compared to the control arm, intervention participants were more likely to complete GC (ORIntervention  = 13.92, 95% CI = 3.06-63.25, p < .01) and GT (ORIntervention  = 12.93, 95% CI = 2.82-59.20, p < .01). Study site did not predict uptake of GC (p = .08) but Ponce participants were more likely to complete GT (ORPonce  = 4.53, 95% CI = 1.04-19.72, p = .04). ANOVAs demonstrated an increase in HBOC knowledge over time across both groups (F(2,88) = 12.24, p < .01, ηp2  = 0.22). We also found a significant interaction of study arm and time, such that intervention participants demonstrated a greater and sustained (to the 3-month follow-up) increase in knowledge than control participants (F(2,88) = 3.66, p = .03, ηp2  = 0.08). No other main or interaction effects were significant (all p's> .15). Study findings demonstrate the potential of our culturally targeted print intervention. Lessons learned from this multisite pilot study for enhancing GC/GT in Latinas include the need to attend to both access to GC/GT and individual factors such as attitudes and knowledge.

Contribution of Germline Predisposition Gene Mutations to Breast Cancer Risk in African American Women

BACKGROUND

The risks of breast cancer in African American (AA) women associated with inherited mutations in breast cancer predisposition genes are not well defined. Thus, whether multigene germline hereditary cancer testing panels are applicable to this population is unknown. We assessed associations between mutations in panel-based genes and breast cancer risk in 5054 AA women with breast cancer and 4993 unaffected AA women drawn from 10 epidemiologic studies.

METHODS

Germline DNA samples were sequenced for mutations in 23 cancer predisposition genes using a QIAseq multiplex amplicon panel. Prevalence of mutations and odds ratios (ORs) for associations with breast cancer risk were estimated with adjustment for study design, age, and family history of breast cancer.

RESULTS

Pathogenic mutations were identified in 10.3% of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, 5.2% of women with ER-positive breast cancer, and 2.3% of unaffected women. Mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 were associated with high risks of breast cancer (OR = 47.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.43 to >100; OR = 7.25, 95% CI = 4.07 to 14.12; OR = 8.54, 95% CI = 3.67 to 24.95, respectively). RAD51D mutations were associated with high risk of ER-negative disease (OR = 7.82, 95% CI = 1.61 to 57.42). Moderate risks were observed for CHEK2, ATM, ERCC3, and FANCC mutations with ER-positive cancer, and RECQL mutations with all breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identifies genes that predispose to breast cancer in the AA population, demonstrates the validity of current breast cancer testing panels for use in AA women, and provides a basis for increased referral of AA patients for cancer genetic testing.

BRCA1/2 mutations and risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy among Latinas: The UPTAKE study

Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is a risk management approach with strong evidence of mortality reduction for women with germline mutations in the tumor suppressor genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2). Few studies to date have evaluated uptake of BSO in women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds who carry BRCA1/2 mutations. The objective of the UPTAKE study was to explore rates and predictors of risk-reducing BSO among Latinas affected and unaffected with breast cancer who had a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation. We recruited 100 Latina women with deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations from community hospitals, academic health systems, community, and advocacy organizations. Women completed interviews in Spanish or English. We obtained copies of genetic test reports for participants who provided signed medical release. After performing threefold cross-validation LASSO for variable selection, we used multiple logistic regression to identify demographic and clinical predictors of BSO. Among 100 participants, 68 had undergone BSO at the time of interview. Of these 68, 35 were US-born (61% of all US-born participants) and 33 were not (77% of the non-US-born participants). Among Latinas with BRCA1/2 mutations, older age (p = 0.004), personal history of breast cancer (p = 0.003), higher income (p = 0.002), and not having a full-time job (p = 0.027) were identified as variables significantly associated with uptake of BSO. Results suggest a high rate of uptake of risk-reducing BSO among a sample of Latinas with BRCA1/2 mutations living in the US. We document factors associated with BSO uptake in a diverse sample of women. Relevant to genetic counseling, our findings identify possible targets for supporting Latinas' decision-making about BSO following receipt of a positive BRCA1/2 test.

Disparities in Genetic Testing and Care among Black women with Hereditary Breast Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite a steady improvement in breast cancer survival rates over the past several decades, mortality disparities remain among Black women, who have a 42% higher death rate compared to non-Hispanic white (NHW) women. Hereditary breast cancer (HBC) accounts for 5-10% of all breast cancer cases, the majority of which are due to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) genes. Despite the availability of BRCA testing for over 25 years, there remain disproportionately lower rates of genetic testing among Blacks compared to NHW due to a multitude of factors. The intent of this review is to discuss racial disparities focused on HBC across diverse populations and review the existing gaps to be addressed when delivering gene-based care.

RECENT FINDINGS

The factors contributing to the racial survival disparity are undoubtedly complex and likely an interplay between tumor biology, genomics, patterns of care and socioeconomic factors. Advances in genomic technologies that now allow for full characterization of germline DNA sequencing are integral in defining the complex and multifactorial cause of breast cancer and may help to explain the existing racial survival disparities.

SUMMARY

Identification of inherited cancer risk may lead to cancer prevention, early cancer detection, treatment guidance, and ultimately has great potential to improve outcomes. Consequently, advances in HBC diagnosis and treatment without widespread implementation have the potential to further widen the existing breast cancer mortality gap between Black and NHW women.

A prospective cohort study to analyze the interaction of tumor-to-breast volume in breast conservation therapy versus mastectomy with reconstruction

PURPOSE

We explored the impact of the relative volume of a tumor versus the entire breast on outcomes in patients undergoing breast conservation therapy (BCT) versus mastectomy and reconstruction (M + R). We hypothesized that there would be a threshold tumor:breast ratio (TBR) below which patient-reported outcomes (PRO) would favor BCT and above which would favor M + R.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancers undergoing BCT or M + R. A prerequisite for inclusion, analysis of tumor and breast volumes was conducted from three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging reconstructions to calculate the TBR. Three-dimensional photography was utilized to calculate pre- and postoperative volumes and assess symmetry. Oncologic, surgical, and patient-reported outcome data were obtained from relevant BREAST-Q modules administered pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

The BCT cohort had significantly smaller tumor volumes (p = 0.001) and lower TBRs (p = 0.001) than patients undergoing M + R overall. The M + R group, however, comprised a broader range of TBRs, characterized at lower values by patients opting for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Postoperative satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial, and sexual well-being scores were significantly higher in the BCT cohort, while physical well-being significantly favored the M + R cohort 480.2 ± 286.3 and 453.1 ± 392.7 days later, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to BCT, M + R was used to manage a broad range of TBRs. The relative importance of oncologic and surgical risk reduction, symmetry, and number of procedures can vary considerably and may limit the utility of TBR as a guide for deciding between BCT and M + R. Clinical Trial StatementThis study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov as "A Prospective Trial to Assess Tumor:Breast Ratio and Patient Satisfaction Following Lumpectomy Versus Mastectomy With Reconstruction", Identifier: NCT02216136.

Community education to enhance the more equitable use of precision medicine in Northern Manhattan

Focusing screening and treatment to those most likely to benefit is the promise of precision medicine but inequitable distribution of precision medicine innovations may exacerbate health disparities. We investigated whether complex genomic concepts can be successfully communicated to diverse populations. Incorporating principles of Community-based Participatory Research, we created a precision medicine curriculum tailored to the needs of our predominantly Hispanic community. We administered the curriculum over 26 months, assessed pre- and post-test comprehension of 8 genetics-related terms, and compared comprehension differences based on demography and health literacy. In total, 438 individuals completed pre-/post-test assessments. At pre-test, 45.6% scored ≥75% across eight major constructs; 66.7% at post-test. Comprehension increased for 7/8 terms with greatest pre/post-test increases for 'mutation' (55% to 78%) and 'sporadic' (34% to 59%). Mean pre-test comprehension scores (≥75%) were lower for Spanish versus. English speakers; mean post-test scores were equivalent. No heterogeneity by demographics or health literacy was observed. We demonstrate that a brief community educational program can improve knowledge of complex genomic concepts. Interventions to increase understanding of genomic concepts underlying precision medicine are key to patients making informed treatment and prevention decisions and may lead to more equitable uptake of precision medicine initiatives.

Culturally Targeted Video Improves Psychosocial Outcomes in Latina Women at Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Latina women at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have lower awareness, knowledge, and use of genetic counseling and testing services (GCT) than non-Latina Whites. Few interventions have been developed to reduce these disparities among at-risk Latinas. This pilot study assessed the impact of a culturally targeted narrative video developed by our team. The study included 40 Latina immigrants living in the United States who were at risk of HBOC, including affected and unaffected women. We assessed pre-post differences in psychosocial outcomes. Participants were 47.35 years old on average (SD = 9.48). Most (70%) were unaffected with cancer, had an annual income of $40,000 or less (65%), an education of High School or less (62.5%), and were uninsured (77.5%). The video significantly enhanced knowledge (p < 0.001), positive attitudes (p < 0.05), anticipatory positive emotions (p < 0.05), and intentions to participate in counseling (p < 0.001). Importantly, the video also significantly reduced negative attitudes (p < 0.05), and attitudinal ambivalence (p < 0.001). The culturally targeted video shows preliminary evidence in improving psychosocial outcomes related to GCT uptake in Latinas at risk for HBOC. This intervention is a promising easily-disseminable strategy to address disparities in GCT utilization.

Decision Making About Genetic Testing Among Women With a Personal and Family History of Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

To understand genetic testing use and decision making among patients with high genetic risk.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey of breast cancer survivors was administered online by a hereditary cancer nonprofit organization, Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, from October 2017 to March 2018.

RESULTS

Of 1,322 respondents, 46% had breast cancer at age < 45 years, 61% had a first-degree relative with cancer, and 84% underwent genetic testing, of whom 56% had a risk-associated pathogenic variant. Most (86%; 95% CI, 84% to 88%) tested respondents were very satisfied with their testing decision, versus 34% (95% CI, 27% to 41%) of untested respondents. Factors that encouraged testing included relatives' cancer risk (75%; 95% CI, 73% to 78%), clinicians' recommendations (68%; 95% CI, 66% to 71%), and potential treatment implications (67%; 95% CI, 64% to 69%). Factors that discouraged testing included insurance concerns (14%; 95% CI, 12% to 16%), cost (14%; 95% CI, 12% to 16%), and discrimination (9%; 95% CI, 7% to 11%). Thirty-nine percent (95% CI, 36% to 41%) recalled hearing from a clinician that genetic discrimination is illegal. Respondents often recalled clinicians informing them about inheritance patterns (65%; 95% CI, 62% to 67%), surgical implications (65%; 95% CI, 63% to 68%), and other cancer risks (66%; 95% CI, 63% to 68%) but less often that results could have potential implications for clinical trial eligibility (38%; 95% CI, 36% to 42%) or targeted therapies (14%; 95% CI, 12% to 16%). Patients who had genetic counseling were twice as likely to recall clinicians informing them about all queried topics. Results did not vary by diagnosis year.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with high genetic risk, clinicians' recommendations, potential treatment implications, and protections against discrimination were motivating factors to undergo genetic testing, but fewer than half recalled clinicians providing all this information, and this did not improve over time. Clinicians influence testing decisions and should inform patients about legal protections and treatment implications.

Discoveries beyond BRCA1/2: Multigene testing in an Asian multi-ethnic cohort suspected of hereditary breast cancer syndrome in the real world

BACKGROUND

Due to historically low uptake of genetic testing, the mutational spectrum of Asians with Hereditary Breast Cancer (HBC) is not well understood. This study sought to understand the incidence and spectrum of germline mutations in Asian patients with suspected HBC in a clinic setting.

METHODS

1056 patients with suspected HBC were seen in our Cancer (CA) Genetics Clinic from 2000-2017, of which 460 underwent genetic testing.

RESULTS

Of 460 probands tested, 93% were female, 61% Chinese, 90% had prior CA, with 19% (77/414) having ≥2 primary CA. Median age at CA-diagnosis was 43y (17-83); 70% had Breast CA (BC) and 25% Ovarian CA (OC). 34% had young-onset BC, 8% bilateral BC, and 4% BC/OC. Majority had family history of BC (53%) or OC (20%). 57% underwent multigene testing (14-49 genes), 34% targeted testing, and 8% predictive testing. 30% were found to have a pathogenic mutation: 80% in BRCA1/2 (8 novel mutations noted). Of 33 non-BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations detected, 61% were in 11 BC genes while 39% were in non-BC genes suggestive of alternative CA syndromes. Testing beyond BRCA1/2 impacted management for 15.9% (22/138) of carriers, but extensive testing identified variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in up to 44.5% of probands. Restricting multigene panel testing to a guideline-based 20-gene panel including Lynch Syndrome genes was found to be most optimal, detecting 94.6% of mutation carriers while reducing VUS rate to 21.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Evolution of CA Genetics testing strategy to a multigene approach facilitated detection of pathogenic mutations in non-BRCA1/2 genes and aided management. Guideline-based panel testing is feasible and can be offered in Asians with suspected HBC.

Genetic Testing Across Young Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Breast Cancer Survivors: Facilitators, Barriers, and Awareness of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

AIMS

This study compared facilitators and barriers to genetic testing and determined awareness about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) across young Hispanic and non-Hispanic white (NHW) breast cancer (BC) survivors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women diagnosed with BC of age ≤50 years in 2009-2012 were recruited through the Florida State Cancer Registry to complete a questionnaire.

RESULTS

There were 1182 participants of which 61% (174/285) of Hispanic patients, and 65% (580/897) of NHW patients had BC testing. Among untested participants, the most common barriers were lack of testing recommendation (44% Hispanics, 32% NHW; p = 0.02) and cost-related concerns (41% Hispanics, 40% NHW; p = 0.83). Among tested participants, the top facilitators were as follows: (1) "To benefit my family's future" (70% Hispanic, 68% NHW), (2) "My doctor recommended testing" (60% Hispanic, 54% NHW), and (3) "Minimal cost to me" (59% Hispanic, 72% NHW). Only 27% of tested and 15% of untested women were aware of GINA; misuse of test results was reported as a barrier for only 6.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of genetic testing recommendation are lower among Hispanics, but both groups reported additional barriers. Most are unaware of GINA, yet misuse is not a highly cited barrier. Findings suggest the need to educate providers on the importance of recommending testing to all who meet criteria; increase awareness of newer options for more affordable testing; and bolster facilitators that may increase testing uptake.

Low Referral Rate for Genetic Testing in Racially and Ethnically Diverse Patients Despite Universal Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Guidelines recommend that all colorectal tumors be assessed for mismatch repair deficiency, which could increase identification of patients with Lynch syndrome. This is of particular importance for minority populations, in whom hereditary syndromes are under diagnosed. We compared rates and outcomes of testing all tumor samples (universal testing) collected from a racially and ethnically diverse population for features of Lynch syndrome.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of colorectal tumors tested from 2012 through 2016 at 4 academic centers. Tumor samples were collected from 767 patients with colorectal cancer (52% non-Hispanic white [NHW], 26% African American, and 17% Hispanic patients). We assessed rates of tumor testing, recommendations for genetic evaluation, rates of attending a genetic evaluation, and performance of germline testing overall and by race/ethnicity. We performed univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

Overall, 92% of colorectal tumors were analyzed for mismatch repair deficiency without significant differences among races/ethnicities. However, minority patients were significantly less likely to be referred for genetic evaluation (21.2% for NHW patients vs 16.9% for African American patients and 10.9% for Hispanic patients; P = .02). Rates of genetic testing were also lower among minority patients (10.7% for NHW patients vs 6.0% for AA patients and 3.1% for Hispanic patients; P < .01). On multivariate analysis, African American race, older age, and medical center were independently associated with lack of referral for genetic evaluation and genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

In a retrospective analysis, we found that despite similar rates of colorectal tumor analysis, minority patients are less likely to be recommended for genetic evaluation or to undergo germline testing for Lynch syndrome. Improvements in institutional practices in follow up after tumor testing could reduce barriers to diagnosis of Lynch diagnosis in minorities.

Health beliefs associated with readiness for genetic counseling among high risk breast cancer survivors

We used the Health Belief Model (HBM) to explore factors associated with readiness for genetic counseling among breast cancer survivors. Breast cancer survivors meeting NCCN genetic counseling referral criteria completed questionnaires capturing demographic and clinical information and factors guided by the HBM, including health beliefs, psychosocial variables, and cues to action. Using logistic regression, we examined whether the above variables differed based on readiness group (pre-contemplators, who did not plan to make a genetic counseling appointment, and contemplators, who planned to make a genetic counseling appointment in the next 1-6 months). Of 111 participants, 57% were pre-contemplators and 43% were contemplators. Higher cancer worry was associated with increased odds of being a contemplator (OR = 2.99; 95% CI = 1.37-6.54) and higher perceived barriers to genetic counseling were associated with decreased odds of being a contemplator (OR = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.11-0.85). Those who reported a family member encouraged them to get tested were more likely to be contemplators (OR = 3.57; 95% CI = 1.19-10.70). Our results suggest key factors for predicting genetic counseling readiness include cancer worry, perceived barriers, and family influence. There is need for increased genetic counseling awareness. Better understanding of factors related to survivors' decisions about counseling can inform tailored interventions to improve uptake and ultimately reduce cancer recurrence risk.

Patient communication of cancer genetic test results in a diverse population

Research on the communication of genetic test results has focused predominately on non-Hispanic White (NHW) mutation-positive families with high-risk hereditary cancer conditions. Little is known about this process for racially and ethnically diverse individuals or for those with mutations in moderate risk genes. The communication behaviors of study participants who carry a gene mutation were analyzed 3 months after disclosure of genetic test results. Participants were queried about communication of their results, as part of a prospective study of multi-gene panel genetic testing. The responses of particpants who tested positive were analyzed by race/ethnicity and by level of cancer risk (high vs. moderate). Of the 216 mutation-positive study participants, 136 (63%) responded. Self-reported race/ethnicity was 46% NHW, 41% Hispanic, 10% Asian, and 2% Black. The majority (99.0%, n = 135) had shared their results with someone and 96% had told a family member (n = 130). Hispanic respondents were less likely to have told a healthcare provider about their results than NHW (29% vs. 68%, p < .0001). Asian respondents were less likely than NHW to encourage family members to undergo testing (OR = 0.1, p = .03); but Asian family members were more likely to undergo testing (OR = 8.0, p = .03). There were no differences in communication between those with a mutation in a high- or moderate-risk gene. Three months post genetic testing, communication of results was very high; 30% reported a family member underwent genetic testing. Further studies are needed to better understand the communication process in individuals from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Promoting guideline-based cancer genetic risk assessment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in ethnically and geographically diverse cancer survivors: Rationale and design of a 3-arm randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although national guidelines for cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have been available for over two decades, less than half of high-risk women have accessed these services, especially underserved minority and rural populations. Identification of high-risk individuals is crucial for cancer survivors and their families to benefit from biomedical advances in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment.

METHODS

This paper describes community-engaged formative research and the protocol of the ongoing randomized 3-arm controlled Genetic Risk Assessment for Cancer Education and Empowerment (GRACE) trial. Ethnically and geographically diverse breast and ovarian cancer survivors at increased risk for hereditary cancer predisposition who have not had a CGRA are recruited through the three statewide cancer registries. The specific aims are to: 1) compare the effectiveness of a targeted intervention (TP) vs. a tailored counseling and navigation(TCN) intervention vs. usual care (UC) on CGRA utilization at 6 months post-diagnosis (primary outcome); compare the effectiveness of the interventions on genetic counseling uptake at 12 months after removal of cost barriers (secondary outcome); 2) examine potential underlying theoretical mediating and moderating mechanisms; and 3) conduct a cost evaluation to guide dissemination strategies.

DISCUSSION

The ongoing GRACE trial addresses an important translational gap by developing and implementing evidence-based strategies to promote guideline-based care and reduce disparities in CGRA utilization among ethnically and geographically diverse women. If effective, these interventions have the potential to reach a large number of high-risk families and reduce disparities through broad dissemination.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03326713; clinicaltrials.gov.

Provider's Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators for Latinas to Participate in Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

The Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) referral to women at high risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Latinas affected by breast cancer have the second highest prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations after Ashkenazi Jews. Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Latinas have lower GCRA uptake. While some studies have identified barriers for GCRA use in this population, few studies have focused on health care providers' perspectives. The purpose of the study was to examine providers' perceptions of barriers and facilitators for at-risk Latina women to participate in GCRA and their experiences providing services to this population. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 healthcare providers (e.g., genetic counselors, patient navigators) recruited nationally through snowballing. Interviews were transcribed. Two coders independently coded each interview and then met to reconcile the codes using Consensual Qualitative Research guidelines. Providers identified several facilitators for GCRA uptake (e.g., family, treatment/prevention decisions) and barriers (e.g., cost, referrals, awareness, stigma). Genetic counselors described important aspects to consider when working with at-risk Latina including language barriers, obtaining accurate family histories, family communication, and testing relatives who live outside the US. Findings from this study can inform future interventions to enhance uptake and quality of GCRA in at-risk Latina women to reduce disparities.

Engagement with Genetic Information and Uptake of Genetic Testing: the Role of Trust and Personal Cancer History

We used national survey data to (1) determine the extent to which individuals trust the sources from which they are most likely to receive information about cancer-related genetic tests (BRCA1/2, Lynch syndrome), (2) examine how level of trust for sources of genetic information might be related to cancer-related genetic testing uptake, and (3) determine whether key factors, such as cancer history and numeracy, moderate the latter association. We used cross-sectional data from the Health Information National Trends Survey. Our study sample included individuals who responded that they had heard or read about genetic tests (n = 1117). All analyses accounted for complex survey design. Although respondents trusted information from health professionals the most, they were significantly less likely to report hearing about genetic testing from such professionals than via television (p < 0.01). Regardless of source, higher levels of trust in the information source from which participants heard about genetic tests were associated with increased odds of genetic testing uptake, particularly among those with a personal cancer history. Numeracy was not associated with genetic testing uptake. Because health professionals were among the most trusted health information sources, they may serve as important brokers of genetic testing information for those with a personal cancer history.

Patient views and correlates of radiotherapy omission in a population-based sample of older women with favorable-prognosis breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The omission of radiotherapy (RT) after lumpectomy is a reasonable option for many older women with favorable-prognosis breast cancer. In the current study, we sought to evaluate patient perspectives regarding decision making about RT.

METHODS

Women aged 65 to 79 years with AJCC 7th edition stage I and II breast cancer who were reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were surveyed (response rate, 70%) regarding RT decisions, the rationale for omitting RT, decision-making values, and understanding of disease recurrence risk. We also surveyed their corresponding surgeons (response rate, 77%). Patient characteristics associated with the omission of RT were evaluated using multilevel, multivariable logistic regression, accounting for patient clustering within surgeons.

RESULTS

Of 999 patients, 135 omitted RT (14%). Older age, lower tumor grade, and having estrogen receptor-positive disease each were found to be strongly associated with omission of RT in multivariable analyses, whereas the number of comorbidities was not. Non-English speakers were more likely to omit RT (adjusted odds ratio, 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-24.5). The most commonly reported reasons for RT omission were that a physician advised the patient that it was not needed (54% of patients who omitted RT) and patient choice (41%). Risk of local disease recurrence was overestimated by all patients: by approximately 2-fold among those who omitted RT and by approximately 8-fold among those who received RT. The risk of distant disease recurrence was overestimated by approximately 3-fold on average.

CONCLUSIONS

To some extent, decisions regarding RT omission are appropriately influenced by patient age, tumor grade, and estrogen receptor status, but do not appear to be optimally tailored according to competing comorbidities. Many women who are candidates for RT omission overestimate their risk of disease recurrence. Cancer 2018;124:2714-2723. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Genetic Counseling Referral Rates in Long-Term Survivors of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Background: Inherited BRCA gene mutations (pathogenic variants) cause 10% of breast cancers. BRCA pathogenic variants predispose carriers to triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC); around 30% of patients with TNBC carry BRCA pathogenic variants. The 2018 NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian recommend genetic counseling referrals for patients with TNBC diagnosed at age ≤60 years. This study sought to describe genetic counseling referral patterns among long-term TNBC survivors at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Methods: This single-institution retrospective analysis of female long-term (disease-free for ≥5 years) TNBC survivors sought to determine the rate of genetic counseling referral among patients diagnosed at age ≤60 years between 1992 and 2008. Patients who underwent treatment and surveillance visits at our institution and were followed until 2017 were included. We collected BRCA pathogenic variant status among tested patients. Descriptive statistical methods and a univariate analysis were used to identify patient characteristics associated with genetic counseling referral. Results: We identified 646 female long-term TNBC survivors with a median age at diagnosis of 47 years. Of these, 245 (38%) received a recommendation for a genetic counseling referral. Among those referred, 156 (64%) underwent genetic testing, and 35% of those tested had BRCA pathogenic variants. Interestingly, among those referred, 20% declined genetic testing. The rate of genetic referrals improved over time, from 25% among TNBC survivors whose last surveillance visit was between 2011 and 2013 to 100% among those whose last surveillance visit was between 2014 or later. Younger age and premenopausal status at diagnosis and a family history of breast or ovarian cancer were associated with an increased rate of referral for genetic counseling. Conclusions: Among long-term TNBC survivors, the rate of referral to genetic counseling increased over time, and among those tested, 35% carried a BRCA pathogenic variant. Survivorship care provides an excellent opportunity to refer eligible patients for genetic counseling.

Recent Trends in Chemotherapy Use and Oncologists' Treatment Recommendations for Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Background

There is growing concern about overtreatment of breast cancer as outcomes have improved over time. However, little is known about how chemotherapy use and oncologists' recommendations have changed in recent years.

Methods

We surveyed 5080 women (70% response rate) diagnosed with breast cancer between 2013 and 2015 and accrued through two Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries (Georgia and Los Angeles) about chemotherapy receipt and their oncologists' chemotherapy recommendations. We surveyed 504 attending oncologists (60.3% response rate ) about chemotherapy recommendations in node-negative and node-positive case scenarios. We conducted descriptive statistics of chemotherapy use and patients' report of oncologists' recommendations and used a generalized linear mixed model of chemotherapy use according to time and clinical factors. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

The analytic sample was 2926 patients with stage I-II, estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer. From 2013 to 2015, keeping other factors constant, chemotherapy use was estimated to decline from 34.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 30.8% to 38.3%) to 21.3% (95% CI = 19.0% to 23.7%, P < .001). Estimated decline in chemotherapy use was from 26.6% (95% CI = 23.0% to 30.7%) to 14.1% (95% CI = 12.0% to 16.3%) for node-negative/micrometastasis patients and from 81.1% (95% CI = 76.6% to 85.0%) to 64.2% (95% CI = 58.6% to 69.6%) for node-positive patients. Use of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) did not change among node-negative/micrometastasis patients, and increasing RS use in node-positive patients accounted for one-third of the chemotherapy decline. Patients' report of oncologists' recommendations for chemotherapy declined from 44.9% (95% CI = 40.2% to 49.7%) to 31.6% (95% CI = 25.9% to 37.9%), controlling for other factors. Oncologists were much more likely to order RS if patient preferences were discordant with their recommendations (67.4%, 95% CI = 61.7% to 73.0%, vs 17.5%, 95% CI = 13.1% to 22.0%, concordant), and they adjusted recommendations based on patient preferences and RS results.

Conclusions

For both node-negative/micrometastasis and node-positive patients, chemotherapy receipt and oncologists' recommendations for chemotherapy declined markedly over time, without substantial change in practice guidelines. Results of ongoing trials will be essential to confirm the quality of this approach to breast cancer care.