A state-wide initiative to promote genetic testing in an underserved population

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.

Out-of-pocket and private pay in clinical genetic testing: A scoping review

Full coverage of the cost of clinical genetic testing is not always available through public or private insurance programs, or a public healthcare system. Consequently, some patients may be faced with the decision of whether to finance testing out-of-pocket (OOP), meet OOP expenses required by their insurer, or not proceed with testing. A scoping review was conducted to identify literature associated with patient OOP and private pay in clinical genetic testing. Seven databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, PAIS, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the JBI Evidence-Based Practice database) were searched, resulting in 83 unique publications included in the review. The presented evidence includes a descriptive analysis, followed by a narrative account of the extracted data. Results were divided into four groups according to clinical indication: (1) hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, (2) other hereditary cancers, (3) prenatal testing, (4) other clinical indications. The majority of studies focused on hereditary cancer and prenatal genetic testing. Overall trends indicated that OOP costs have fallen and payer coverage has improved, but OOP expenses continue to present a barrier to patients who do not qualify for full coverage.

Precision medicine testing in ovarian cancer: The growing inequity between patients with commercial vs medicaid insurance

INTRODUCTION

Precision medicine technologies have significant impact in the care of patients with ovarian cancer. Compared to affluent patients, socioeconomically vulnerable patients are less likely to have access to this testing. There is little data that demonstrate this inequity over time.

METHODS

We used the IBM Truven Health MarketScan Research Database to identify patients in the United States who underwent surgery for ovarian cancer between 2011 and 2017. The presence of claims for precision medicine testing within six months of surgery was assessed for each patient. Precision medicine testing included both molecular genetic testing (BRCA limited or full sequencing, somatic and germline testing) as well as ancillary pathology tests (immunohistochemistry, microsatellite instability). Demographic data was extracted.

RESULTS

We identified 27,181 patients who met eligibility. Of these, 88.6% had commercial insurance, and 11.4% had Medicaid. While the proportion of patients who underwent precision medicine testing increased over time for both cohorts (47.0% to 66.6% for commercially insured, 41.4% to 57.6% for Medicaid insured, p < 0.0001), the inequity in testing rates widened (5.6% disparity to 9.0%, p < 0.0001). This was driven by growing inequity in germline and somatic genetic testing (7.6% disparity to 21.3%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is widening inequity in precision medicine testing rates between commercially insured and Medicaid insured poate patients with ovarian cancer.

Delays in diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy: An evaluation of genotypic and sociodemographic factors

INTRODUCTION

In this study we investigate associations between genotypic and sociodemographic factors and the age of diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD).

METHODS

Data were collected from the Duchenne Registry from 2007 to 2019, and then used to assess the impact genotype, race/ethnicity, neighborhood poverty levels, and other sociodemographics factors have on the age of diagnosis of DMD patients without a known family history, using univariate and multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

The mean age of diagnosis was 4.43 years. Non-Caucasian patients and patients from high-poverty neighborhoods were older at diagnosis (P < .01). Increased year of birth was associated with decreasing age of diagnosis (P < .001). Specific genetic mutation subtypes were associated with later ages of symptom onset and diagnosis (P = .005).

DISCUSSION

After adjusting for genotype and year of birth, the average age of diagnosis was significantly later for traditionally at-risk patients.

A state-wide initiative to promote genetic testing in an underserved population

Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility has been widely studied and utilized clinically. Access to genetic services in research and practice is largely limited to well-insured, Caucasian individuals. In 2009, the Cancer Resource Foundation (CRF) implemented the Genetic Information for Treatment Surveillance and Support (GIFTSS) program to cover the out-of-pocket expenses associated with cancer genetic testing, targeting high-risk individuals with limited financial means and limited health insurance coverage. Here, we (i) describe the characteristics of participants in the Massachusetts (MA) GIFTSS program and (ii) evaluate mutations found in this diverse sample. A secondary retrospective data analysis was performed using de-identified demographic data obtained from laboratory requisition forms and cancer genetic testing result information from the laboratory source. Eligible participants were those who utilized the MA GIFFTS program from 2009 through December of 2014. Data were summarized using descriptive measures of central tendency. Participants were residents of Massachusetts who had health insurance and had a reported income within 250-400% of the federal poverty level. Genetic testing results were categorized following clinical guidelines. Overall, 123 (13%) of participants tested positive for a mutation in a cancer susceptibility gene. For those with a cancer diagnosis, 65 (12%) were found to have a positive result and 20 (7%) had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). For those unaffected patients, 58 (15%) had a positive result and 10 (3%) were found to have a VUS. The results from this study are useful in describing genetic testing outcomes in this high-risk underserved community. Repeatedly, the literature reports that individuals from diverse or limited resource settings are less likely to access genetic testing. Continued research efforts should be devoted to promoting the access of genetic testing in the high-risk, underserved community.