Pilot study of an online training program to increase genetic literacy and communication skills in oncology healthcare professionals discussing BRCA1/2 genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients

Evaluating an online stroke training programme for Saudi Arabian physiotherapists for improving their knowledge and confidence in long-term stroke care: a pilot mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Stroke is currently the second leading cause of death in Saudi Arabia (SA), with an annual incidence rate of 29 per 100,000 people. There is a huge demand for rehabilitation services for people who have had a stroke living in the community; however, the services in SA do not meet this need due to a lack of community rehabilitation services. Additionally, rehabilitation staff have reported a lack of knowledge and skills to deliver rehabilitation services for people post-stroke in the community. A first step towards developing these services is to train professionals working in this area to deliver community-based rehabilitation for patients with stroke. This is the first study to evaluate an online stroke training programme (STP) for physiotherapists in SA to enhance stroke care and enable them to deliver long-term care following the discharge of stroke patients.

METHODS

A sequential mixed methods design was adopted with three measurements undertaken pre-training, post-training questionnaires and one-month follow-up interviews. Participants were eligible if they were physiotherapists of any gender who were currently providing therapy to stroke patients and working in SA. The STP consisted of four modules and was delivered via an online platform. Questionnaires developed for this study were key outcome measures used to measure the change in the participants' knowledge, confidence and attitude. Chi-Square test and Wilcoxon test were used to compare pre- and post-training results.

RESULTS

Twenty-six physiotherapists completed the STP. The results demonstrated a statistically significant increase (P < 0.05) in the participants' knowledge and confidence in providing long-term care for patients with stroke. Additionally, the STP had a positive impact on the participants' attitudes. Qualitative interviews post-training suggested that participants' experiences of STP were positive. However, the training had limitations such as the lack of practical content and a short duration.

CONCLUSION

The STP was seen to be acceptable and found to improve participants' knowledge and confidence in delivering long-term care for patients with stroke in this study. Future research should focus on evaluating impact of training in improvements in service delivery by physiotherapists.

BRCA Mutation Testing in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Practical Guidance for Australian Clinical Practice

Some patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) possess germline or acquired defects in the DNA damage repair (DDR) genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Tumors with BRCA mutations exhibit sensitivity to poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) such as olaparib and rucaparib. As a result, molecular diagnostic testing to identify patients with BRCA mutations eligible for the PARPi therapy has become an integral component of managing patients with mCRPC. There are practical challenges in the current molecular testing pathway in Australia that can compromise testing success. Testing success is often contingent on quality of tissue handling and laboratory processing techniques to minimize DNA degradation and suboptimal sequencing data quality. Greater adoption of best testing practices in Australia can be facilitated with education and greater awareness of expert recommendations. Here, we provide expert recommendations on how to optimize BRCA molecular diagnostic testing in patients with mCRPC. Optimization and standardization of molecular diagnostic testing will support health care providers and institutes in establishing more efficient testing pathways, enabling access to targeted therapies such as PARPi, and improving patient outcomes.

BRCA-mutated breast cancer: the unmet need, challenges and therapeutic benefits of genetic testing

Mutations in the BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 genes (BRCAm) increase the risk of developing breast cancer (BC) and are found in ~5% of unselected patients with the disease. BC resulting from a germline BRCAm (gBRCAm) has distinct clinical characteristics along with increased sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapies, and potentially decreased sensitivity to cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors. Given the evolving treatment landscape for gBRCAm BC in early and advanced disease settings, timely determination of gBRCAm status is fundamental to facilitate the most effective treatment strategy for patients. However, many patients with gBRCAm are not identified due to suboptimal referral rates and/or a low uptake of genetic testing. We discuss current evidence for a differential response to treatment in patients with gBRCAm in early and advanced BC settings, including outcomes with PARP inhibitors, platinum-based chemotherapies, and CDK4/6 inhibitors, as well as ongoing treatment innovations and the potential of these treatment approaches. Current genetic testing strategies are also examined, including the latest guidelines on who and when to test for gBRCAm, as well as challenges to testing and how these may be overcome.

Commentary: Why is genetic testing underutilized worldwide? The case for hereditary breast cancer

It is thirty years since the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were discovered and genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 was introduced. Despite increasing awareness of the genetic basis of cancer and our evolving knowledge of effective means of prevention, screening, and treatment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers, genetic testing is underutilized, and most mutation carriers remain unidentified. In this commentary, we explore possible reasons for why this might be so. Our focus is on factors that may influence or deter a patient from pursuing testing, rather than discussing the implications of receiving a positive test result. Issues of concern include an inadequate number of genetic counselors, restrictive (and conflicting) eligibility criteria for testing, the cost of the test, health insurance coverage, fear of future insurance discrimination, privacy issues, lack of familiarity with the testing process in primary care and gaps in both patient and provider knowledge about the impact and the value of testing. We discuss how these factors may lead to the underutilization of genetic testing in North America and throughout the world and discuss alternative models of genetic healthcare delivery. We have invited leaders in cancer genetic from around the world to tell us what they think are the barriers to testing in their host countries.

Roll-out of an educational workshop to improve knowledge and self-confidence of healthcare professionals engaged in mainstreaming of breast cancer genetics

BACKGROUND

There are calls worldwide for the mainstreaming of genetic testing in breast cancer (BC) clinics, but health care professionals (HCPs) are not always familiar with nor confident about genetic counselling. TRUSTING (Talking about Risk & uncertainties of Testing in Genetics is an educational programme shown to significantly improve HCPs' knowledge, communication, self-confidence, and self-awareness. We rolled out TRUSTING workshops across the UK and probed their influence on mainstreaming within BC clinics.

METHODS

1 surgeon, 3 oncologists, and 1 nurse specialist who had attended the original TRUSTING evaluation project were trained to facilitate the 8-hour programme in pairs. The participants (all health care professionals) attending their workshops completed 3 questionnaires: - 1) the Intolerance to Uncertainty Scale, 2) an 18-item multiple choice knowledge questionnaire about BRCA 1/2 gene testing, incidence and risk reducing interventions and 3) a 10-item questionnaire exploring self-confidence when advising patients and their families about these issues. Both knowledge and self-confidence were re-tested post workshop together with evaluation of the facilitators' approach and overall satisfaction with the event. Follow-up questionnaires 3-12 months later examined impact of workshops on HCPs' own practice and how mainstreaming was working in their clinics.

RESULTS

120 HCPs (61 surgeons; 41 nurses; 9 oncologists; 9 other) attended 12 workshops. Knowledge scores (mean change = 6.58; 95% CI 6.00 to 7.17; p<0.001), and self-confidence (mean change = 2.64; 95% CI 2.33 to 2.95; p<0.001) improved significantly post workshop. Ratings for the facilitators' approach were uniformly high (mean range 9.6 to 9.9 /10). Most delegates found the workshops useful, enjoyable, and informative and 98% would definitively recommend them to colleagues. Follow-up data (n = 72/96) showed that 57% believed attendance had improved their own practice when discussing genetic testing with their patients. When asked about mainstreaming more generally, 78% reported it was working well, 18% had not yet started, and 3% thought it was problematic in their centre.

CONCLUSIONS

Discussing the implications that having a pathogenic gene alteration has for patients' treatment and risk-reducing interventions is complex when patients are already coming to terms with a breast cancer diagnosis. Training facilitators enhanced the wider roll-out of the TRUSTING educational programme and is an effective means of helping HCPs now involved in the mainstreaming of genetic testing.

Talking about Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk-Evaluation of a Psychosocial Training Module for Gynecologists in Germany

Primary care gynecologists are increasingly integrated into the care of patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) risks. These physicians should not only have basic genetic knowledge; they should also feel able to sensitively address an increased HBOC risk and deal with emotional, stressful situations in this context. Our project aimed at developing a training module, 'iKNOWgynetics', addressing psychosocial challenges in the context of HBOC care for primary care gynecologists. We developed the psychosocial training module in three phases: first, we conducted an online survey with n = 35 women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer to assess patients' experiences and needs. Second, based on the results of the needs assessment, we developed the training module. Third, we evaluated the training by assessing physicians' (n = 109) self-efficacy with regard to communication skills in the context of HBOC before and after the training. In the needs assessment, seven psychosocial themes emerged. These themes, complementing a review of the literature, informed the training curriculum. The training was divided into two parts: (1) communicating with women before genetic testing and (2) care co-management for women with HBOC after genetic testing. After the training, participants reported a significant increase in self-efficacy in three domains: communicating empathetically, educating patients in a comprehensible way and dealing with emotionally challenging situations. Our results highlight the relevance of psychosocial issues for patients with HBOC. A genetic literacy training module that integrates aspects of psychosocial care increases physicians' confidence in dealing with emotionally challenging situations before and after their patients' genetic testing. Thus, such trainings may improve the care of women with hereditary cancer risks.

Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients: experience from a single surgeon's practice in a large US Academic Center

This study evaluated the impact of mainstreamed genetic testing (MGT) on the timing and uptake of testing in an academic breast surgeon's practice. Before September 2019 (pre-MGT phase), a breast surgery practice at Massachusetts General Hospital followed a traditional model of a pre-test consultation with a genetic counselor (GC) following a referral. After September 2019 (post-MGT phase), the same practice offered patients genetic testing in a single clinical encounter with a breast surgeon. We evaluated the waiting time between referral and GC visit in the pre-MGT phase and compared the uptake and positivity rates between both phases. In the pre-MGT phase (204 patients), the median waiting time for GC visit was seven days for patients with a newly diagnosed cancer, 211 days for patients with a personal history of cancer, and 224 days for non-cancer patients who had a family history. A total of 105 (51.5%) patients completed a GC appointment. In the post-MGT phase (202 patients), a significantly higher proportion of patients (88.1%, p < 0.001) consented to genetic testing, while the proportion of patients who tested positive was lower (pathogenic variant: 11.9% vs. 20.0%; variant of uncertain significance: 19.9% vs. 28.0%; p = 0.047). Implementing MGT can reduce the number of clinical visits, significantly shorten patients' wait time to test initiation, and increase the completion of genetic testing. Successful integration of this model relied on the genetic expertise of the breast surgeon involved and the support of the GC team.

Surgical Oncologists and Nurses in Breast Cancer Care are Ready to Provide Pre-Test Genetic Counseling

BACKGROUND

Pre-test genetic counseling for patients with breast cancer is increasingly being provided by nongenetic healthcare professionals. We evaluated the attitudes, knowledge, and self-efficacy of surgeons, oncologists, and nurses regarding mainstream genetic testing and the feasibility to incorporate pre-test genetic counseling into routine care.

METHODS

We offered an online training to healthcare professionals from 13 hospitals and implemented a mainstream genetic testing pathway in 11/13 (85%) hospitals. Questionnaires were sent before (T0) and 6 months after (T1) completing the training. Those who did not complete the training received a questionnaire to assess their motivations.

RESULTS

In 11 hospitals, 80 (65%) healthcare professionals completed the training, of whom 70 (88%) completed both questionnaires. The attitudes, (perceived) knowledge and self-efficacy of healthcare professionals were high both at baseline and 6 months after completing the training. After 6 months, their perceived knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of a genetic test and implications for family members had significantly improved (p = 0.012 and p = 0.021, respectively). For the majority (89%), the time investment for pre-test genetic counseling was less than 15 min per patient and as expected or better. Healthcare professionals considered the total time investment feasible to incorporate mainstream genetic testing into their daily practice. The main barrier to complete the training was lack of time. The online training was considered useful, with a rating of 8/10.

CONCLUSION

Surgical oncologists and nurses in breast cancer care feel well-equipped and motivated to provide pre-test genetic counseling after completion of an online training module.

Understanding changes in genetic literacy over time and in genetic research participants

As genomic and personalized medicine becomes mainstream, assessing and understanding the public's genetic literacy is paramount. Because genetic research drives innovation and involves much of the public, it is equally important to assess its impact on genetic literacy. We designed a survey to assess genetic literacy in three ways (familiarity, knowledge, and skills) and distributed it to two distinct samples: 2,050 members of the general population and 2,023 individuals currently enrolled in a large-scale genetic research study. We compared these data to a similar survey implemented in 2013. The results indicate that familiarity with basic genetic terms in 2021 (M = 5.36 [range 1-7], p < 0.001) and knowledge of genetic concepts in 2021 (M = 9.06 [56.6% correct], p = 0.002) are significantly higher compared to 2013 (familiarity: M = 5.08 [range 1-7]; knowledge: M = 8.72 [54.5% correct]). Those currently enrolled in a genetic study were also significantly more familiar with genetic terms (M = 5.79 [range 1-7], p < 0.001) and more knowledgeable of genetic concepts (M = 10.57 [66.1% correct], p < 0.001), and they scored higher in skills (M = 3.57 [59.5% correct], p < 0.001) than the general population (M = 5.36 [range 1-7]; M = 9.06 [56.6% correct]; M = 2.65 [44.2% correct]). The results suggest that genetic literacy is improving over time, with room for improvement. We conclude that educational interventions are needed to ensure familiarity with and comprehension of basic genetic concepts and suggest further exploration of the impact of genetic research participation on genetic literacy to determine mechanisms for potential interventions.

UK consensus recommendations for clinical management of cancer risk for women with germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes: RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1 and PALB2

Germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in the cancer predisposition genes BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C are identified in approximately 15% of patients with ovarian cancer (OC). While there are clear guidelines around clinical management of cancer risk in patients with GPV in BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6, there are few guidelines on how to manage the more moderate OC risk in patients with GPV in BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C, with clinical questions about appropriateness and timing of risk-reducing gynaecological surgery. Furthermore, while recognition of RAD51C and RAD51D as OC predisposition genes has been established for several years, an association with breast cancer (BC) has only more recently been described and clinical management of this risk has been unclear. With expansion of genetic testing of these genes to all patients with non-mucinous OC, new data on BC risk and improved estimates of OC risk, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and CanGene-CanVar project convened a 2-day meeting to reach a national consensus on clinical management of BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C carriers in clinical practice. In this paper, we present a summary of the processes used to reach and agree on a consensus, as well as the key recommendations from the meeting.