Search Behavior Regarding Cancer Susceptibility Genes Using a Clinical Decision Support Tool for Gene-Specific Penetrance: Content Analysis

Online Provision of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Health Information: A Search Engine Driven Systematic Web-Based Analysis

BRCA genetic testing is available for UK Jewish individuals but the provision of information online for BRCA is unknown. We aimed to evaluate online provision of BRCA information by UK organisations (UKO), UK Jewish community organisations (JCO), and genetic testing providers (GTP). Google searches for organisations offering BRCA information were performed using relevant sets of keywords. The first 100 website links were categorised into UKOs/JCOs/GTPs; additional JCOs were supplemented through community experts. Websites were reviewed using customised questionnaires for BRCA information. Information provision was assessed for five domains: accessibility, scope, depth, accuracy, and quality. These domains were combined to provide a composite score (maximum score = 5). Results were screened (n = 6856) and 45 UKOs, 16 JCOs, and 18 GTPs provided BRCA information. Accessibility was high (84%,66/79). Scope was lacking with 35% (28/79) addressing >50% items. Most (82%, 65/79) described BRCA-associated cancers: breast and/or ovarian cancer was mentioned by 78%(62/79), but only 34% (27/79) mentioned ≥1 pancreatic, prostate, melanoma. Few websites provided carrier frequencies in the general (24%,19/79) and Jewish populations (20%,16/79). Only 15% (12/79) had quality information with some/minimal shortcomings. Overall information provision was low-to-moderate: median scores UKO = 2.1 (IQR = 1), JCO = 1.6 (IQR = 0.9), and GTP = 2.3 (IQR = 1) (maximum-score = 5). There is a scarcity of high-quality BRCA information online. These findings have implications for UK Jewish BRCA programmes and those considering BRCA testing.

Genetically guided precision medicine clinical decision support tools: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Patient care using genetics presents complex challenges. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools are a potential solution because they provide patient-specific risk assessments and/or recommendations at the point of care. This systematic review evaluated the literature on CDS systems which have been implemented to support genetically guided precision medicine (GPM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase, encompassing January 1, 2011-March 14, 2023. The review included primary English peer-reviewed research articles studying humans, focused on the use of computers to guide clinical decision-making and delivering genetically guided, patient-specific assessments, and/or recommendations to healthcare providers and/or patients.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3832 unique articles. After screening, 41 articles were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Alerts and reminders were the most common form of CDS used. About 27 systems were integrated with the electronic health record; 2 of those used standards-based approaches for genomic data transfer. Three studies used a framework to analyze the implementation strategy.

DISCUSSION

Findings include limited use of standards-based approaches for genomic data transfer, system evaluations that do not employ formal frameworks, and inconsistencies in the methodologies used to assess genetic CDS systems and their impact on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that future research on CDS system implementation for genetically GPM should focus on implementing more CDS systems, utilization of standards-based approaches, user-centered design, exploration of alternative forms of CDS interventions, and use of formal frameworks to systematically evaluate genetic CDS systems and their effects on patient care.

A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States

Introduction. Personalized web-based clinical decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening could address knowledge gaps, enhance patient autonomy in shared decision-making, and promote equitable care. The purpose of this review was to present evidence on the availability, usability, feasibility, acceptability, quality, and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools to support their integration into clinical care. Methods. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist to conduct this review. We searched 6 databases to identify literature on the development, validation, usability, feasibility, acceptability testing, and uptake of the tools into practice settings. Quality assessment for each tool was conducted using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument, with quality scores ranging from 0 to 63 (lowest-highest). Results. We identified 10 tools for breast cancer prevention and 9 tools for screening. The tools included individual (e.g., age), clinical (e.g., genomic risk factors), and health behavior (e.g., alcohol use) characteristics. Fourteen tools included race/ethnicity, but no tool incorporated contextual factors (e.g., insurance, access) associated with breast cancer. All tools were internally or externally validated. Six tools had undergone usability testing in samples including White (median, 71%; range, 9%-96%), insured (99%; 97%-100%) women, with college education or higher (60%; 27%-100%). All of the tools were developed and tested in academic settings. Seven (37%) tools showed potential evidence of uptake in clinical practice. The tools had an average quality assessment score of 21 (range, 9-39). Conclusions. There is limited evidence on testing and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools in diverse clinical settings. The development, testing, and integration of tools in academic and nonacademic settings could potentially improve uptake and equitable access to these tools.

Highlights

There were 19 personalized, interactive, Web-based decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening.Breast cancer outcomes were personalized based on individual clinical characteristics (e.g., age, medical history), genomic risk factors (e.g., BRCA1/2), race and ethnicity, and health behaviors (e.g., smoking). The tools did not include contextual factors (e.g., insurance status, access to screening facilities) that could potentially contribute to breast cancer outcomes.Validation, usability, acceptability, and feasibility testing were conducted mostly among White and/or insured patients with some college education (or higher) in academic settings. There was limited evidence on testing and uptake of the tools in nonacademic clinical settings.

Penetrance of male breast cancer susceptibility genes: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Several male breast cancer (MBC) susceptibility genes have been identified, but the MBC risk for individuals with a pathogenic variant in each of these genes (i.e., penetrance) remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the penetrance of MBC susceptibility genes to better summarize current estimates of penetrance.

METHODS

A search query was developed to identify MBC-related papers indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE. A validated natural language processing method was applied to identify papers reporting penetrance estimates. These penetrance studies' bibliographies were reviewed to ensure comprehensiveness. We accessed the potential ascertainment bias for each enrolled study.

RESULTS

Fifteen penetrance studies were identified from 12,182 abstracts, covering five purported MBC susceptibility genes: ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2. Cohort (n = 6, 40%) and case-control (n = 5, 33%) studies were the two most common study designs, followed by family-based (n = 3, 20%), and a kin-cohort study (n = 1, 7%). Seven of the 15 studies (47%) adjusted for ascertainment adequately and therefore the MBC risks reported by these seven studies can be considered applicable to the general population. Based on these seven studies, we found pathogenic variants in ATM, BRCA2, CHEK2 c.1100delC, and PALB2 show an increased risk for MBC. The association between BRCA1 and MBC was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

This work supports the conclusion that pathogenic variants in ATM, BRCA2, CHEK2 c.1100delC, and PALB2 increase the risk of MBC, whereas pathogenic variants in BRCA1 may not be associated with increased MBC risk.