Providing a community-based cancer risk assessment service for a socially and ethnically diverse population

Mapping inter-professional collaboration in oncogenetics: Results from a scoping review

Inter-professional collaboration could improve timely access and quality of oncogenetic services. Here, we present the results of a scoping review conducted to systematically identify collaborative models available, unpack the nature and extent of collaboration proposed, synthesize evidence on their implementation and evaluation, and identify areas where additional research is needed. A comprehensive search was conducted in four journal indexing databases on June 13th, 2022, and complemented with searches of the grey literature and citations. Screening was conducted by two independent reviewers. Eligible documents included those describing either the theory of change, planning, implementation and/or evaluation of collaborative oncogenetic models. 165 publications were identified, describing 136 unique interventions/studies on oncogenetic models with somewhat overlapping collaborative features. Collaboration appears to be mostly inter-professional in nature, often taking place during risk assessment and pre-testing genetic counseling. Yet, most publications provide very limited information on their collaborative features, and only a few studies have set out to formally evaluate them. Better quality research is needed to comprehensively examine and make conclusions regarding the value of collaboration in this oncogenetics. We propose a definition, logic model, and typology of collaborative oncogenetic models to strengthen future planning, implementation, and evaluation in this field.

Disparities in gynecologic cancer genetics evaluation

An estimated 2-5% of endometrial cancers and 15-20% of high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancers have an underlying hereditary cause. Appropriate risk assessment, genetic counseling, and germline genetic testing for cancer predisposition genes in both gynecologic cancer patients and their at-risk relatives is essential for effective delivery of tailored cancer treatment and cancer prevention. However, significant disparities exist within medically underserved and minority populations in the United States regarding awareness of, access to, and use of genetic services. The objectives of this review are to summarize the literature on genetic counseling and genetic testing of gynecologic cancer patients, the cascade genetic testing of their families following the identification of a germline mutation associated with susceptibility to cancer, to highlight disparities between populations, and to present some potential remedies.

Black and Minority Ethnic women's decision-making for risk reduction strategies after BRCA testing: Use of context and knowledge

Within the field of breast cancer care, women concerned about their family history are offered genetic testing and subsequent treatment options based on several factors which include but are not limited to personal and family cancer disease histories and clinical guidelines. Discussions around decision-making in genetics in Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups are rarely documented in literature, and information regarding interactions with genetics services is usually discussed and linked to lack of scientific knowledge. As such, counselling sessions based only on scientific and medical information miss out the many reasons participants consider in making health decisions, information which can be used to encourage BME women to engage in cancer genetics services. 10 BME women with a mixed personal and family history of breast and ovarian cancer backgrounds, were interviewed in a study exploring issues of knowledge about familial breast cancer syndromes, to understand how they created and used familial knowledge for health decisions, with a particular focus on attitudes towards risk reducing strategies. Study results show that our participants are not unique in the ways they make decisions towards the use of cancer genetics and risk reduction strategies and as such, there are no specific ethnically defined pathways for decision-making. Our participants demonstrated mixed biomedical, social and individual cultural reasons for their decision-making towards risk reduction surgeries and treatment options which are similar to women from different ethnicities and are individual rather than group-specific. Narratives about suspicion of scientific utility of genetic knowledge, the perceived predictive value of mutations for future cancers or the origin of mutations and family disease patterns feature heavily in how participants evaluated genetic information and treatment decisions. The diversity of results shows that our participants are interested in engaging with genetic information but use multiple sources for evaluating the extent of involvement in genetic services and the place of genetic information and treatment options for themselves and their families. Genetic information is considered within various bio-social scenarios before decision-making for risk reduction is undertaken. BME women are shown to undertake evaluative processes which clinicians are encouraged to explore for better patient support. Continuing to focus on links between superficial and un-representative meanings of ethnicity, ethnic identity and attitudes and behaviours by only searching for differences between ethnic groups, are unhelpful in further understanding how women from those diverse backgrounds make decisions towards risk reduction interventions. Future research must find ways of investigating and understanding populations in ways that are not focussed solely on ethnic differences but on how meaning is created out of social circumstances and experiences.

Uptake of breast cancer preventive therapy in the UK: results from a multicentre prospective survey and qualitative interviews

PURPOSE

Uptake of preventive therapy for women at increased breast cancer risk in England is unknown following the introduction of UK clinical guidelines in 2013. Preventive therapy could create socioeconomic inequalities in cancer incidence if it is more readily accepted by particular socio-demographic groups. In this multicentre study, we investigated uptake of tamoxifen and evaluated socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with initiation. We explored women's experiences of treatment decision-making using qualitative interview data.

METHODS

Between September 2015 and December 2016, women (n = 732) attending an appointment at one of 20 centres in England to discuss breast cancer risk were approached to complete a survey containing socio-demographic details and nulliparity. Of the baseline survey respondents (n = 408/732, 55.7% response rate), self-reported uptake of tamoxifen at 3-month follow-up was reported in 258 (63.2%). Sixteen women participated in semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

One in seven (38/258 = 14.7%) women initiated tamoxifen. Women who had children were more likely to report use of tamoxifen than those without children (OR = 5.26; 95%CI: 1.13-24.49, p = 0.035). Interview data suggested that women weigh up risks and benefits of tamoxifen within the context of familial commitments, with exposure to significant other's beliefs and experiences of cancer and medication a basis for their decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of tamoxifen is low in clinical practice. There were no socio-demographic differences in uptake, suggesting that the introduction of breast cancer preventive therapy is unlikely to create socioeconomic inequalities in cancer incidence. Women's decision-making was influenced by familial priorities, particularly having children.

What hinders minority ethnic access to cancer genetics services and what may help?

Ethnic disparities in use of cancer genetics services raise concerns about equitable opportunity to benefit from familial cancer risk assessment, improved survival and quality of life. This paper considers available research to explore what may hinder or facilitate minority ethnic access to cancer genetics services. We sought to inform service development for people of South Asian, African or Irish origin at risk of familial breast, ovarian, colorectal and prostate cancers in the UK. Relevant studies from the UK, North America and Australasia were identified from six electronic research databases. Current evidence is limited but suggests low awareness and understanding of familial cancer risk among minority ethnic communities studied. Socio-cultural variations in beliefs, notably stigma about cancer or inherited risk of cancer, are identified. These factors may affect seeking of advice from providers and disparities in referral. Achieving effective cross-cultural communication in the complex contexts of both cancer and genetics counselling, whether between individuals and providers, when mediated by third party interpreters, or within families, pose further challenges. Some promising experience of facilitating minority ethnic access has been gained by introduction of culturally sensitive provider and counselling initiatives, and by enabling patient self-referral. However, further research to inform and assess these interventions, and others that address the range of challenges identified for cancer genetics services are needed. This should be based on a more comprehensive understanding of what happens at differing points of access and interaction at community, cancer care and genetic service levels.

Could triaging family history of cancer during palliative care enable earlier genetic counseling intervention?

BACKGROUND

Patients are commonly referred to cancer genetics services when all affected family members are deceased. This makes genetic testing and risk assessment more difficult, reducing the benefit from screening and prophylactic treatment.

METHODS

Observational, retrospective, cohort study of 508 randomly selected patients referred to a regional cancer genetics unit, using review of case notes to explore whether a simple clinical "3, 2, 1" family history rule could have been used to improve timely and appropriate referrals for genetic assessment. The 3, 2, 1 criteria are: three affected relatives with the same/associated cancers, across two generations, with at least one person affected age <50 years.

RESULTS

Most (71% [362]) genetic risk assessment referrals were in unaffected individuals and 22% (80) of these were referred after all affected family members had died, including 24% (19) who lost their last remaining affected relative in the previous year. Most (59% [301]) referrals met all 3, 2, 1 criteria, and 67% of these could have been made earlier in clinical practice. A further 23% (115) met two of the three criteria.

CONCLUSION

Using a simple "3, 2, 1" family rule in cancer care and particularly in palliative care could enable earlier cancer genetic risk assessment for unaffected relatives, improving the potential to benefit from targeted screening and intervention.