Exploring Predictors of Genetic Counseling and Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Findings from the 2015 U.S. National Health Interview Survey

Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 1% of individuals have a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, however, the majority are not aware. Collecting a cancer family history (CFH) can triage patients to receive genetic testing. To rigorously assess different methods of CFH collection, we compared a web-based tool (WBT) to usual care (clinician collects CFH) in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

New gynecologic oncology patients (seen 9/2019-9/2021) were randomized to one of three arms in a 2:2:1 allocation ratio: 1) usual care clinician CFH collection, 2) WBT completed at home, or 3) WBT completed in office. The WBT generated a cancer-focused pedigree and scores on eight validated cancer risk models. The primary outcome was collection of an adequate CFH (based on established guidelines) with usual care versus the WBT.

RESULTS

We enrolled 250 participants (usual care - 110; WBT home - 105; WBT office - 35 [closed early due to COVID-19]). Within WBT arms, 109 (78%) participants completed the tool, with higher completion for office versus home (33 [94%] vs. 76 [72%], P = 0.008). Among participants completing the WBT, 63 (58%) had an adequate CFH versus 5 (5%) for usual care (P < 0.001). Participants completing the WBT were significantly more likely to complete genetic counseling (34 [31%] vs. 15 [14%], P = 0.002) and genetic testing (20 [18%] vs. 9 [8%], P = 0.029). Participant and provider WBT experience was favorable.

CONCLUSIONS

WBTs for CFH collection are a promising application of health information technology, resulting in more comprehensive CFH and a significantly greater percentage of participants completing genetic counseling and testing.

Patient perspectives on risk-reducing salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy for ovarian cancer risk-reduction: A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Increasing evidence suggests the fallopian tube as the site of origin of BRCA1/2-associated high-grade ovarian cancers. Several ongoing trials are evaluating salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (RRSDO) for ovarian cancer risk reduction and patients are beginning to ask their clinicians about this surgical option. This study sought to systematically review the available literature examining patient preferences regarding RRSDO and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) to provide clinicians with an understanding of patient values, concerns, and priorities surrounding ovarian cancer risk-reducing surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42023400690). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating acceptance and surgical decision-making regarding RRSO and RRSDO among patients with an increased risk of ovarian cancer.

RESULTS

The search yielded 239 results, among which six publications met the systematic review inclusion criteria. Acceptance of RRSDO was evaluated in all studies and ranged from 34% to 71%. Factors positively impacting patients' acceptance of RRSDO included: avoidance of surgical menopause, preservation of fertility, concerns about sexual dysfunction, family history of breast cancer, and avoidance of hormone replacement therapy. Factors limiting this acceptance reported by patients included concerns regarding oncologic safety, surgical timing, and surgical complications.

CONCLUSION

To date, few studies have explored patient perspectives surrounding RRSDO. Collectively, the limited data available indicate a high level of acceptance among BRCA1/2 carriers, and provides insight regarding both facilitating and limiting factors associated with patient preferences to better equip clinicians in the counseling and support of their patients.

Assessment of a Peer Physician Coaching Partnership Between a Designated Cancer Center Genetics Service and a Community Cancer Network Hospital

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer seen in rural and underserved areas disproportionately face barriers to access genetic services. Genetic testing is critical to inform treatment decisions, for early detection of another cancer, and to identify at-risk family members who may benefit from screening and prevention.

OBJECTIVE

To examine medical oncologists' genetic testing ordering trends for patients with cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective quality improvement study was performed in 2 phases over 6 months between August 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, at a community network hospital. Phase 1 focused on observation of clinic processes. Phase 2 incorporated peer coaching from cancer genetics experts for medical oncologists at the community network hospital. The follow-up period lasted 9 months.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The number of genetic tests ordered was compared between phases.

RESULTS

The study included 634 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.0 [10.8] years [range, 39-90 years]; 409 women [64.5%]; 585 White [92.3%]); 353 (55.7%) had breast cancer, 184 (29.0%) had prostate cancer, and 218 (34.4%) had a family history of cancer. Of the 634 patients with cancer, 29 of 415 (7.0%) received genetic testing in phase 1, and 25 of 219 (11.4%) received genetic testing in phase 2. Of the 29 patients who received testing in phase 1, 20 (69.0%) had germline genetic testing; 23 of 25 patients (92.0%) had germline genetic testing in phase 2. Uptake of germline genetic testing increased by 23.0% between phases, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .06). Uptake of germline genetic testing was highest among patients with pancreatic cancer (4 of 19 [21.1%]) and ovarian cancer (6 of 35 [17.1%]); the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends offering genetic testing to all patients with pancreatic cancer and ovarian cancer.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study suggests that peer coaching from cancer genetics experts was associated with an increase in ordering of genetic testing by medical oncologists. Efforts made to (1) standardize gathering of personal and family history of cancer, (2) review biomarker data suggestive of a hereditary cancer syndrome, (3) facilitate ordering tumor and/or germline genetic testing every time NCCN criteria are met, (4) encourage data sharing between institutions, and (5) advocate for universal coverage for genetic testing may help realize the benefits associated with precision oncology for patients and their families seeking care at community cancer centers.

Readiness to Accept Genetic Testing for Personalized Medicine: Survey Findings on the Role of Socio-Demographic Characteristics, Health Vulnerabilities, Perceived Genetic Risk and Personality Factors

Studies from various countries have shown that majorities would accept genetic testing for personalization of treatment, but little is known about differences among population subgroups. The present study investigated whether readiness to accept a hypothetical cost-free offer of genetic testing to personalize treatment depends on socio-demographic characteristics, health-related vulnerabilities, personal dispositions, and prior awareness about personalized medicine. The study was based on a cross-sectional survey design. Out of a representative initial sample of 50-80-year-old Danish citizens (n = 15,072), n = 6807 returned a fully answered web-based questionnaire. Socio-demographic data were added from a national registry. Data were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression. A large majority of respondents (78.3%) expressed their readiness to be tested. Rates were higher in men, younger persons, and those with higher income. Additionally, ex-smokers and obese persons as well as those less satisfied with their health and respondents who perceived a personal genetic risk were more interested, as were those with higher internal health control, higher extraversion, higher emotional stability, and those who had not heard about this option before. Further research should investigate the specific concerns among population subgroups which need being addressed by systematic communication efforts in a clinical but also a broader public health context.

Relatives from Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome Families Forgoing Genetic Testing: Findings from the Swiss CASCADE Cohort

Cascade genetic testing of relatives from families with pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) or Lynch syndrome (LS) has important implications for cancer prevention. We compared the characteristics of relatives from HBOC or LS families who did not have genetic testing (GT (−) group) with those who had genetic testing (GT (+) group), regardless of the outcome. Self-administered surveys collected cross-sectional data between September 2017 and December 2021 from relatives participating in the CASCADE cohort. We used multivariable logistic regression with LASSO variable selection. Among n = 115 relatives who completed the baseline survey, 38% (n = 44) were in the GT (−) group. Being male (OR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.10–7.10) and without a previous cancer diagnosis (OR: 4.47, 95% CI: 1.03–19.42) increased the odds of being untested by almost three times. Individuals from families with fewer tested relatives had 29% higher odds of being untested (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55–0.92). Reasons for forgoing cascade testing were: lack of provider recommendation, lack of time and interest in testing, being afraid of discrimination, and high out-of-pocket costs. Multilevel interventions designed to increase awareness about clinical implications of HBOC and LS in males, referrals from non-specialists, and support for testing multiple family members could improve the uptake of cascade testing.

Association between Health Insurance Type and Genetic Testing and/or Counseling for Breast and Ovarian Cancer

As genetic testing becomes increasingly incorporated into clinical practice to aid in both the diagnosis and risk assessment of genetic diseases, patients benefit from genetic counseling to support their understanding of test results either before and/or after genetic testing. Therefore, access to genetic testing and counseling is imperative for patient care. It is well established that health insurance coverage is a major determinant of access to health care in the United States as individuals without insurance are less likely to have a regular source of health care than their insured counterparts. Different health insurance plans and benefits also influence patients’ access to health care. Data on the association of health insurance and the uptake of genetic testing and/or counseling for cancer risk are limited. Using data from the National Health Interview Survey, we examined the uptake of genetic testing and/or counseling for breast/ovarian cancer risk by health insurance type. We found that only a small proportion of women undergo genetic testing and/or counseling for breast/ovarian cancer risk (2.3%), even among subgroups of women at risk due to family or personal history (6.5%). Women with health insurance were more likely to undergo genetic testing and/or counseling for breast/ovarian cancer risk, particularly those with military and private insurance plans, than those without health insurance after adjusting for various demographic, socioeconomic, and health risk covariates. Further investigations are needed to examine potential disparities in access and health inequities.

Genetic Testing and/or Counseling for Colorectal Cancer by Health Insurance Type

Genetic testing is increasingly used in clinical practice to assist with the diagnosis of genetic diseases and/or provide information about disease risk, and genetic counseling supports patient understanding of test results before and/or after genetic testing. Therefore, access to genetic testing and counseling is important for patient care. Health insurance coverage is a major determinant of access to health care in the United States. Uninsured individuals are less likely to have a regular source of health care than their insured counterparts. Different health insurance types and benefits also influence access to health care. Data on the association of health insurance and uptake of genetic testing and/or counseling for cancer risk are limited. Using data from the National Health Interview Survey, we examined the uptake of genetic testing and/or counseling for colorectal cancer (CRC) risk by health insurance type. We found that only a small proportion of individuals undergo genetic testing and/or counseling for CRC risk (0.8%), even among subgroups of individuals at risk due to family or personal history (3.7%). Insured individuals were more likely to undergo genetic testing and/or counseling for CRC risk, particularly those with Military and Private insurance plans, after adjusting for various demographic, socioeconomic, and health risk covariates. Further investigations are warranted to examine potential disparities in access and health inequities.

Are beliefs about the importance of genetics for cancer prevention and early detection associated with high risk cancer genetic testing in the U.S. Population?

Public attitudes towards germline genetic testing for inherited cancers have been found to be generally positive. Past research demonstrated that diverse causal beliefs and contextual factors are associated with uptake of genetic testing. However, it is unclear how beliefs about genetically informed cancer prevention and early detection ultimately shape testing behaviors. We used data from the National Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5 Cycle 4) to evaluate these beliefs and the relationship between beliefs related to cancer genetics and participation in cancer genetic testing. Overall, 5.24% of the total weighted sample underwent cancer genetic testing, of whom 70.5% (n = 141) had no personal history of cancer, whereas others had a personal diagnosis of breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer (23.0%), or other cancers (6.5%). In adjusted multivariable analysis, testing was positively associated with personal history of breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer (OR = 28.37, 95% CI: 10.19–79.04), female sex (OR = 2.97, 95% CI: 1.41–6.26), having high cancer worry (OR = 4.78, 95%: 2.19–10.45), and negatively associated with being Hispanic (OR = 0.37, 95%: 0.16–0.86) or non-Hispanic Asian (OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04–0.33). Belief in the importance of genetics for early detection of cancer was associated with testing (OR = 18.03, 95% CI: 4.07–79.79), whereas belief in the importance of genetics for cancer prevention was not. The association between testing and belief about the importance of genetics for early detection of cancer, but not cancer prevention, is a surprising finding that warrants further research. Better understanding of these beliefs and their potential impact on test uptake may inform population genetic testing efforts.

Prevalence of Americans reporting a family history of cancer indicative of increased cancer risk: Estimates from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey

The collection and evaluation of family health history in a clinical setting presents an opportunity to discuss cancer risk, tailor cancer screening recommendations, and identify people with an increased risk of carrying a pathogenic variant who may benefit from referral to genetic counseling and testing. National recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer screening indicate that men and women who have a first-degree relative affected with these types of cancers may benefit from talking to a healthcare provider about starting screening at an earlier age and other options for cancer prevention. The prevalence of reporting a first-degree relative who had cancer was assessed among adult respondents of the 2015 National Health Interview Survey who had never had cancer themselves (n = 27,999). We found 35.6% of adults reported having at least one first-degree relative with cancer at any site. Significant differences in reporting a family history of cancer were observed by sex, age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and census region. Nearly 5% of women under age 50 and 2.5% of adults under age 50 had at least one first-degree relative with breast cancer or colorectal cancer, respectively. We estimated that 5.8% of women had a family history of breast or ovarian cancer that may indicate increased genetic risk. A third of U.S. adults who have never had cancer report a family history of cancer in a first-degree relative. This finding underscores the importance of using family history to inform discussions about cancer risk and screening options between healthcare providers and their patients.

Statewide trends and factors associated with genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk in Arkansas 2013-2018

BACKGROUND

Early identification of hereditary cancer risk would save lives, but genetic testing (GT) has been inadequate. We assessed i) trends for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch syndrome, and other GT and ii) factors associated with receipt of GT.

METHODS

We used data from the Arkansas All-Payer Claims Database from January 2013 through June 2018 (commercial, Medicaid), December 2017 (state employee), or December 2016 (Medicare) and identified enrollees with ≥1 month of enrollment. Using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT-4) codes, rates for GT were calculated per 100,000 person-quarters and time series regressions estimated. Second, GT and covariate information for enrollees with 24 months of continuous enrollment were used to estimate separate logistic regression models for each GT category.

RESULTS

Among 2,520,575 unique enrollees, HBOC testing rates were 2.2 (Medicaid), 22.0 (commercial), 40.4 (state employee), and 13.1(Medicare) per 100,000 person-quarters and increased linearly across all plans. Older age (OR=1.24; 95%CI 1.20 - 1.28), female sex (OR=18.91; 95%CI 13.01 - 28.86), higher comorbidity burden (OR=1.08; 95%CI 1.05 - 1.12), mental disorders (OR=1.53; 95%CI 1.15 - 2.00), and state employee coverage (OR=1.65; 95%CI 1.37 - 1.97) were positively associated with HBOC testing. Less than 1 of 10,000 enrollees received Lynch syndrome testing, while < 5 of 10,000 received HBOC testing.

CONCLUSION

GT rates for hereditary cancer syndromes have increased in Arkansas but remain low. Receipt of GT was explained with high discrimination by sex and plan type.

IMPACT

Expansion of GT for hereditary cancer risk in Arkansas is needed to identify high-risk individuals who could benefit from risk-reduction strategies.

Testing and extending strategies for identifying genetic disease-related encounters in pediatric patients

PURPOSE

To better understand health care utilization and develop decision support tools, methods for identifying patients with suspected genetic diseases (GDs) are needed. Previous studies had identified inpatient-relevant International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes that were possibly, probably, or definitely indicative of GDs. We assessed whether these codes identified GD-related inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department encounters among pediatric patients with suspected GDs from a previous study (the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next-Generation Exome Sequencing [NCGENES] study).

METHODS

Using the electronic medical records of 140 pediatric patients from the NCGENES study, we characterized the presence of ICD codes representing possible, probable, or definite GD-related diagnoses across encounter types. In addition, we examined codes from encounters for which initially no GD-related codes had been found and determined whether these codes were indicative of a GD.

RESULTS

Among NCGENES patients with visits between 2014 and 2017, 92% of inpatient, 75% of emergency department, and 63% of outpatient encounters included ≥1 GD-related code. Encounters with highly specific (ie, definite) GD codes had fewer low-specificity GD codes than encounters with only low-specificity GD codes. We identified an additional 32 ICD-9 and 56 ICD-10 codes possibly indicative of a GD.

CONCLUSION

Code-based strategies can be refined to assess health care utilization among pediatric patients and may contribute to a systematic approach to identify patients with suspected GDs.

Uptake of Genetic Testing Among Patients with Cancer At Risk for Lynch Syndrome in the National Health Interview Survey

Lynch syndrome is the most common inherited cancer syndrome that increases the risk of developing colorectal and endometrial cancer. Universal screening guidelines were first recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2009 and are updated annually by multiple societies. Therefore, one would expect genetic testing rates to increase over time. But testing remains underutilized among those with colorectal or endometrial cancer, even though early detection can improve prognosis and survival rates. In this study, we aimed to understand differences in genetic testing uptake among those with colorectal cancer or endometrial cancer from 2005, 2010, 2015, using data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We examined genetic testing uptake across cancer-type, age (≤50 or ≥51), sex, race, insurance, and education using a χ² statistical analysis. Despite an upward genetic testing trend in 2010, we found no significant differences in genetic testing uptake over time. In 2010, non-White individuals experienced the highest increase from 2005 in comparison with White individuals. However, genetic testing rates declined for both groups by 2015. Our findings show that genetic testing for colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer did not increase over a 10-year period in spite of guidelines that recommend testing. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Genetic testing uptake for colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer has not increased over a 10-year period in spite of universal screening guidelines. More genetic testing education is needed at the provider and patient level to improve screening strategies for cancer patients who are most at risk for Lynch syndrome.

Electronic Family History Screening Tool for Detection of Inherited Cancer Risk: A Prospective Pilot Study

Family history screening to identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary cancers could be a powerful strategy to prevent cancer but is used inconsistently in primary care. The objective was to improve identification of women with at-risk family histories using a point-of-care family history screening tool administered on an electronic tablet device during well-woman appointments. A total of 288 women were invited to participate and 136 women (47.2%) completed the electronic family history screening tool. Significantly more women were identified and referred to the genetics department with the electronic family history screening tool than the standard-of-care paper questionnaire (11.8% versus 0.8%, P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of referred women who were evaluated by the genetic counselors, and no pathogenic variants were found with either family history screening method. Implementing innovative self-reporting tools may improve inherited cancer risk detection.

Use of a Standardized Tool to Identify Women at Risk for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian

OBJECTIVE

To increase rates of identification and genetic counseling referral for women at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC).

DESIGN

Evidence-based practice improvement initiative.

SETTING/LOCAL PROBLEM

Private suburban obstetric and gynecologic (OB/GYN) practice in Tennessee with no standardized process for HBOC risk assessment or referral to genetic services.

PARTICIPANTS

Provider-led women's health care teams delivering well-woman care for women ages 18 years and older.

INTERVENTION/MEASUREMENTS

We implemented the use of a standardized familial risk assessment tool and clinical decision-making algorithm. Preimplementation and postimplementation risk identification and genetic services referral rates were measured, as was clinicians' compliance with using the risk assessment tool. The aim of the initiative was to increase identification and referral rates by 25 percentage points.

RESULTS

Women at risk of HBOC in the postimplementation group were 25.9 times more likely to be identified as being at risk (OR = 25.88, 95% confidence interval [10.78, 62.14]) and 31.5 times more likely to be offered referral to genetic counseling (OR = 31.50, 95% CI [13.37, 74.22]) compared with those in the preimplementation group. Rates of risk identification and referral to genetic counseling for women at risk of HBOC improved by 58.2 and 69.3 percentage points, respectively, surpassing the aims of this initiative and showing statistical significance of p < .001 for both indices.

CONCLUSION

The use of a standardized risk assessment tool and process for HBOC risk identification and genetic referral resulted in a significant increase in the identification and referral of women at risk in this setting. Early identification of women with HBOC is a crucial first step in increasing the use of enhanced screening and interventions that can reduce HBOC-associated cancer morbidity and mortality.

Factors Influencing Discussion of Cancer Genetic Testing with Health-Care Providers in a Population-Based Survey

INTRODUCTION

Discussion of cancer genetic testing with health-care providers (HCPs) is necessary to undergo testing to inform cancer risk assessment and prevention. Given the rapid evolution in genetic testing practice in oncology, we describe the current landscape of population-level cancer genetic testing behaviors.

METHODS

A questionnaire including items regarding discussion of cancer genetic testing with HCPs was administered to a nonprobability sample (N = 2,029) of the Texas population.

RESULTS

Overall, 11% of respondents discussed cancer genetic testing with HCPs. In multivariable analysis, discussion was significantly related to having a personal history of breast/ovarian/colon cancer (OR = 11.57, 95% CI = 5.34-25.03), personal history of other cancer (OR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.69-5.97), and health information-seeking behaviors (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.12-2.66). Surprisingly, respondents who believed that inherited predispositions in addition to other modifiable risk factors cause cancer were less likely to discuss genetic testing compared to those who did not believe that inherited cancer predispositions cause cancer (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.36-0.79).

DISCUSSION

The high discussion rate may be attributed to increased public awareness of genetic testing and adoption of more inclusive clinical genetic testing guidelines. The findings suggest that efforts to increase public awareness of the utility of genetic testing on personalized cancer risk assessment and cancer prevention are needed.

Polygenic risk scores for genetic counseling in psychiatry: Lessons learned from other fields of medicine

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) may aid in the identification of individuals at-risk for psychiatric disorders, treatment optimization, and increase in prognostic accuracy. PRS may also add significant value to genetic counseling. Thus far, integration of PRSs in genetic counseling sessions remains problematic because of uncertainties in risk prediction and other concerns. Here, we review the current utility of PRSs in the context of clinical psychiatry. By comprehensively appraising the literature in other fields of medicine including breast cancer, Alzheimer's Disease, and cardiovascular disease, we outline several lessons learned that could be applied to future studies and may thus benefit the incorporation of PRS in psychiatric genetic counseling. These include integrating PRS with environmental factors (e.g. lifestyle), setting up large-scale studies, and applying reproducible methods allowing for cross-validation between cohorts. We conclude that psychiatry may benefit from experiences in these fields. PRS may in future have a role in genetic counseling in clinical psychiatric practice, by advancing prevention strategies and treatment decision-making, thus promoting quality of life for (potentially) affected individuals.

Gender differences in self-reported family history of cancer: A review and secondary data analysis

Background

Assessment of family history of cancer (FHC) mostly relies on self‐report. Our goal was to find out whether there is a systematic gender difference in self‐reported FHC.

Methods

We identified nine population‐based studies which provided statistics of FHC in men and women (N₁ = 404 541). Furthermore, we analyzed data (N₂ = 167 154) from several iterations of the US‐based Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We calculated the proportion of positive FHC, odds ratios (OR M/F), 95% confidence intervals, and aggregated statistics. We additionally analyzed in‐depth questions about FHC from HINTS 5 Cycle 2.

Results

In the reviewed studies the odds of men reporting a FHC were lower compared with the odds of women with an average OR of 0.84 [0.71; 1.00] across all studies and an OR of 0.75 [0.70; 0.80] for the six studies from the US and Europe. The gender gap was replicated in our own analyses of HINTS and NHIS with an average OR of 0.75 [0.71; 0.79]. In HINTS 5 Cycle 2 men described themselves as less familiar with their FHC and less confident answering questions regarding FHC. They were also less likely to discuss FHC with family members.

Conclusions

Men— at least in the US and Europe—were consistently less likely to report FHC compared with women. Future research should investigate how the assessment of FHC can be improved to reduce these differences. Health care professionals should also consider the potential for biased reporting by gender when assessing FHC.

Genetic Counseling, Testing, and Management of HBOC in India: An Expert Consensus Document from Indian Society of Medical and Pediatric Oncology

PURPOSE

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is primarily characterized by mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes. There are several barriers to the implementation of genetic testing and counseling in India that may affect clinical decisions. These consensus recommendations were therefore convened as a collaborative effort to improve testing and management of HBOC in India.

DESIGN

Recommendations were developed by a multidisciplinary group of experts from the Indian Society of Medical and Pediatric Oncology and some invited experts on the basis of graded evidence from the literature and using a formal Delphi process to help reach consensus. PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched to source relevant articles.

RESULTS

This consensus statement provides practical insight into identifying patients who should undergo genetic counseling and testing on the basis of assessments of family and ancestry and personal history of HBOC. It discusses the need and significance of genetic counselors and medical professionals who have the necessary expertise in genetic counseling and testing. Recommendations elucidate requirements of pretest counseling, including discussions on genetic variants of uncertain significance and risk reduction options. The group of experts recommended single-site mutation testing in families with a known mutation and next-generation sequencing coupled with multiplex ligation probe amplification for the detection of large genomic rearrangements for unknown mutations. Recommendations for surgical and lifestyle-related risk reduction approaches and management using poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are also detailed.

CONCLUSION

With rapid strides being made in the field of genetic testing/counseling in India, more oncologists are expected to include genetic testing/counseling as part of their clinical practice. These consensus recommendations are anticipated to help homogenize genetic testing and management of HBOC in India for improved patient care.

Predictors of genetic testing uptake in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Many newly diagnosed breast cancer patients do not receive genetic counseling and testing at the time of diagnosis. We examined predictors of genetic testing (GT) in this population.

METHODS

Within a randomized controlled trial of proactive rapid genetic counseling and testing vs usual care, patients completed a baseline survey within 6 weeks of breast cancer diagnosis but before a definitive survey. We conducted a multinomial logistic regression to identify predictors of GT timing/uptake.

RESULTS

Having discussed GT with a surgeon was a dominant predictor (χ² (2, N = 320) = 70.13; P < .0001). Among those who discussed GT with a surgeon, patients who had made a final surgery decision were less likely to receive GT before surgery compared with postsurgically (OR [odds ratio] = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.12-0.49) or no testing (OR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.14-0.56). Older patients (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.91-0.99) and participants enrolled in New York/New Jersey (OR = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.07-0.72) were less likely to be tested compared with receiving results before surgery. Those with higher perceived risk (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.00-1.03) were more likely to receive results before surgery than to not be tested.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the role of patient-physician communication about GT as well as patient-level factors that predict presurgical GT.

Racial and ethnic differences in genetic counseling experiences and outcomes in the United States: A systematic review

As genetic counseling services expand and reach a wider catchment of the population, there is a critical need to better understand the impact of services on a greater diversity of patients. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate genetic counseling experiences and outcomes among racial and ethnic minorities. Six databases extracted articles published from 2005 to 2019 that assessed genetic counseling participation, knowledge and awareness, motivators, barriers, perceptions, and outcomes for racial and ethnic minority populations in the United States. Genetic counseling outcomes were categorized using the Framework for Outcomes of Clinical commUnication Services. A total of 1,227 abstracts were identified, of which 23 papers met inclusion criteria. Results suggest the possibility of racial and ethnic differences in some genetic counseling experiences and outcomes but noted differences were not adequately replicated between studies. The few included studies differed greatly in aims, methods, and results, which made comparison across study designs challenging and effectively barred thematic analysis. Additional research is needed that includes more study populations and settings with patients of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, as well as more structured study designs that allow for elucidations of differences between White and non-White populations.