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

Interventions to support decision making in people considering germline genetic testing for BRCA 1/2 pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants: A scoping review

Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are medically actionable and may inform hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) treatment and prevention. However, rates of germline genetic testing (GT) in people with and without cancer are suboptimal. Individuals' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs may influence GT decisions. While genetic counseling (GC) provides decision support, the supply of genetic counselors is insufficient to meet demand. Accordingly, there is a need to explore the evidence on interventions that aim to support BRCA1/2 testing decisions. We conducted a scoping review of PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO using search terms related to HBOC, GT, and decision making. First, we screened records to identify peer-reviewed reports that described interventions to support BRCA1/2 testing decisions. Next, we reviewed full-text reports and excluded studies that lacked statistical comparisons or enrolled previously tested individuals. Finally, we extracted study characteristics and findings into a table. All records and reports were reviewed independently by two authors; decisions were tracked in Rayyan, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Of 2116 unique citations, 25 met the eligibility criteria. Articles were published between 1997 and 2021 and described randomized trials and nonrandomized, quasi-experimental studies. Most studies tested technology-based (12/25, 48%) or written (9/25, 36%) interventions. Nearly half (12/25, 48%) of interventions were designed to complement traditional GC. Of the interventions compared to GC, 75% (6/8) increased or had a noninferior effect on knowledge, and 67% (4/6) decreased or had a noninferior effect on decisional conflict. Intervention effects on GT uptake were mixed, which may reflect evolving eligibility criteria for GT. Our findings suggest novel interventions may promote informed GT decision making, but many were developed to complement traditional GC. Trials that assess the effects of decision support interventions in diverse samples and evaluate implementation strategies for efficacious interventions are warranted.

Randomized trial promoting cancer genetic risk assessment when genetic counseling cost removed: 1-year follow-up

PURPOSE

Cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) is recommended for women with ovarian and high-risk breast cancer. However, the underutilization of CGRA has long been documented, and cost has been a major barrier. In this randomized controlled trial, a tailored counseling and navigation (TCN) intervention significantly improved CGRA uptake at 6-month follow-up, compared with targeted print (TP) and usual care (UC). We aimed to examine the effect of removing genetic counseling costs on CGRA uptake by 12 months.

METHODS

We recruited racially and geographically diverse women with breast and ovarian cancer from cancer registries in Colorado, New Jersey, and New Mexico. Participants assigned to TCN received telephone-based psychoeducation and navigation. After 6 months, the trial provided free genetic counseling to participants in all arms.

RESULTS

At 12 months, more women in TCN obtained CGRA (26.6%) than those in TP (11.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 2.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.56 to 4.89) and UC (12.2%; OR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.41 to 4.29). There were no significant differences in CGRA uptake between TP and UC. The Kaplan-Meier curve shows that the divergence of cumulative incidence slopes (TCN vs UC, TCN vs TP) appears primarily within the initial 6 months.

CONCLUSION

TCN significantly increased CGRA uptake at the 12-month follow-up. Directly removing the costs of genetic counseling attenuated the effects of TCN, highlighting the critical enabling role played by cost coverage. Future policies and interventions should address multilevel cost-related barriers to expand patients' access to CGRA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered with the NIH clinical trial registry, clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03326713. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03326713.

Genetic counselling resources in non-english languages: A scoping review

Objective

Genetic counselling is essential for individuals seeking genetic or genomic testing. Whereas innovative strategies for GC delivery are being explored to meet the growing demand on the clinical genetics workforce, it is essential to consider the unique needs of culturally and linguistically diverse populations.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review to examine the extent, range, and gaps in the body of non-English, patient-facing educational resources available for Limited English Proficient (LEP) patients accessing clinical genetics and genomics services.

Results

The literature search returned 246 unique resources, most available in several languages. Forty-six languages were represented, with Spanish, Russian, and French being the most common. Resources were in various formats and were of varying quality.

Conclusions

There is a lack of high-quality supplementary genetics education material available in languages other than English, which limits the quality-of-care that LEP families may receive compared to their English-speaking counterparts. Of equal concern is the difficulty in finding existing resources and in determining their quality.

Innovation

This research highlights the important need for genetics education material that is of good quality in languages other than English and the challenges associated with identifying this material. A central, curated repository, perhaps sponsored by a genetic counselling organization, would be of great benefit to help genetic counsellors meet the needs of their culturally and linguistically diverse patients.

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.

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.

Cultural adaptations to a telephone genetic counseling protocol and booklet for Latina breast cancer survivors at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Telephone genetic counseling (TGC) is accepted as standard clinical care for people seeking hereditary cancer risk assessment. TGC has been shown to be non-inferior to in-person genetic counseling, but trials have been conducted with a predominantly highly educated, non-Hispanic White population. This article describes the process of culturally adapting a TGC protocol and visual aid booklet for Spanish-preferring Latina breast cancer survivors at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. The adaptation process included two phases. Phase 1 involved a review of the literature and recommendations from an expert team including community partners. Phase 2 included interviews and a pilot with the target population (n = 14) to collect feedback about the adapted protocol and booklet following steps from the Learner Verification and Revision Framework. We describe the adaptation process and report the main adaptations following the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Interventions (FRAME). Adaptations in Phase 1 were responsive to the target population needs and characteristics (e.g., delivered in Spanish at an appropriate health literacy level, addressing knowledge gaps, targeting cultural values). Phase 2 interviews were crucial to refine details (e.g., selecting words) and to add components to address GCT barriers (e.g., saliva sample video). Cultural adaptations to evidence-based TGC protocols can increase the fit and quality of care for historically underserved populations. As TGC visits become routine in clinical care, it is crucial to consider the needs of diverse communities to adequately promote equity and justice in cancer care.

Behavioral beliefs about genetic counseling among high-risk Latina breast cancer survivors in Florida and Puerto Rico

Compared with non-Hispanic White women, Latina women are less likely to receive genetic counseling (GC) and testing (GT) following BC diagnosis. This study used secondary data analysis to explore beliefs about GC among Latina BC survivors in and outside the US mainland. GC/GT-naïve, high-risk, Spanish-preferring Latina BC survivors (n = 52) in FL and PR completed the Behavioral Beliefs about GC scale. Participants reported high positive beliefs about GC (M = 4.19, SD = 0.92); the majority agreed that GC was beneficial to understand cancer risk (90%) and promote discussion (87%) in their family. Participants reported low-to-moderate scores for barriers (Ms = 1.53-3.40; SDs = 0.59-0.90). The most frequently endorsed barriers were desire for additional GC information (M = 3.44; SD = 0.90), and GC logistic concerns (M = 2.71; SD = 0.80). No statistically significant differences for barriers and benefits scales were identified by place of residence (all ps ≥ 0.12). These findings highlight the importance of delivering culturally sensitive GC information to high-risk Latina BC survivors.

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.

Genetic counseling, virtual visits, and equity in the era of COVID-19 and beyond

Overnight, as a result of the COVID‐19 pandemic, telehealth rapidly transitioned from limited application to widespread implementation. The field of genetic counseling was well positioned to make this transition to virtual care since there is generally less of a need for patients to be seen in‐person for physical exams or urgent care. Going forward, virtual visits will presumably become a mainstay in the provision of genetic services and it is anticipated that clinics will adopt “hybrid” models with both in‐person and virtual visit options. This commentary highlights the successes and challenges in the rapid implementation of virtual visits, focusing on who has benefited versus who has been challenged or left behind. We also discuss genetic testing considerations, including the additional steps required for patients and clinicians when testing is ordered outside of the clinical setting, which can result in delays or a lack of testing altogether. Future research considerations are presented to address the needs among the most vulnerable and help ensure equitable access and benefit.

Overcoming Disparities in Cancer: A Need for Meaningful Reform for Hispanic and Latino Cancer Survivors

Hispanic and Latino (HL) cancer survivors are at a critical disadvantage compared with non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients regarding sociodemographic adversities and access to equitable treatment options. By 2030, there will be about four million HL cancer survivors in the U.S., representing nearly 20% of survivors in this country. Hispanics and Latinos are subjected to significant challenges in accessing and receiving equitable care relative to NHWs. Hispanics and Latinos also experience lower rates of health insurance and financial resources, limiting health care options. These disparities often originate from disparate social determinants of health, including lower funding for education and school programs, greater neighborhood stressors and violence, lower access to healthy and affordable food, and greater barriers to community health and exercise opportunities. Even among HL cancer survivors with proper access to health care, they experience disparate treatment options, including low inclusion in clinical trials and/or access to experimental therapies. A solution to these barriers necessitates complex and systemic changes that involve, for example, investing in public health programs, increasing the diversity and cultural awareness of the medical workforce, and promoting research opportunities such as clinical trials that are inclusive of HLs. Only through meaningful reform will equitable cancer care be available for all in the U.S. regardless of racial and/or ethnic background. This article reviews some of the critical social determinants of health and biases relevant to HL cancer survivors and provides recommendations for achieving cancer health equity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Hispanics and Latinos experience a significant and often disproportionate cancer-related burden compared with non-Hispanic and Latino White individuals and other racial and ethnic groups. Meaningful reform to achieve health equity in oncology should focus on approaches to gaining trust among diverse patients, cultural and community sensitivity and engagement in oncology care and research, diversifying the workforce, and improving inclusion in clinical trial participation. Taken together, these recommendations can lead to exemplary and equitable care for all patients.

Overcoming Disparities in Cancer: A Need for Meaningful Reform for Hispanic and Latino Cancer Survivors

Hispanic and Latino (HL) cancer survivors are at a critical disadvantage compared with non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients regarding sociodemographic adversities and access to equitable treatment options. By 2030, there will be about four million HL cancer survivors in the U.S., representing nearly 20% of survivors in this country. Hispanics and Latinos are subjected to significant challenges in accessing and receiving equitable care relative to NHWs. Hispanics and Latinos also experience lower rates of health insurance and financial resources, limiting health care options. These disparities often originate from disparate social determinants of health, including lower funding for education and school programs, greater neighborhood stressors and violence, lower access to healthy and affordable food, and greater barriers to community health and exercise opportunities. Even among HL cancer survivors with proper access to health care, they experience disparate treatment options, including low inclusion in clinical trials and/or access to experimental therapies. A solution to these barriers necessitates complex and systemic changes that involve, for example, investing in public health programs, increasing the diversity and cultural awareness of the medical workforce, and promoting research opportunities such as clinical trials that are inclusive of HLs. Only through meaningful reform will equitable cancer care be available for all in the U.S. regardless of racial and/or ethnic background. This article reviews some of the critical social determinants of health and biases relevant to HL cancer survivors and provides recommendations for achieving cancer health equity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Hispanics and Latinos experience a significant and often disproportionate cancer-related burden compared with non-Hispanic and Latino White individuals and other racial and ethnic groups. Meaningful reform to achieve health equity in oncology should focus on approaches to gaining trust among diverse patients, cultural and community sensitivity and engagement in oncology care and research, diversifying the workforce, and improving inclusion in clinical trial participation. Taken together, these recommendations can lead to exemplary and equitable care for all patients.