Large, Prospective Analysis of the Reasons Patients Do Not Pursue BRCA Genetic Testing Following Genetic Counseling

Barriers to early detection: Insurance denials for breast MRI screening in women with germline BRCA1/2 mutations

OBJECTIVES

Women with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (gBRCA1/2) are recommended to undergo annual breast MRI and mammography. Our objective was to describe the frequency of insurance denials for annual breast MRIs in women with gBRCA1/2 and determine denial trends.

METHODS

Women with gBRCA1/2 following in a high-risk breast cancer clinic with breast MRIs ordered from 2020 to 2021 were identified and cross-referenced with a database of insurance denials. Radiology records were queried to determine if screening breast MRIs were performed in 2020 and 2021. Rates of MRI denials and outcomes after appeal were determined.

RESULTS

There were 682 women with gBRCA1/2 who had screening breast MRIs ordered from 2020 to 2021, including 318 (47 %) BRCA1, 356 (52 %) BRCA2, and 8 (1 %) with both. 73 women (11 %) had an MRI denied. Women insured through Medicaid had the highest rates of denials (2020: 7 %, 2021: 18 %), followed by commercial insurance (2020: 6 %, 2021: 9 %). There were significantly more denials in 2021 compared to 2020 (p = 0.044), and 2021 denials were more likely to be denied on appeal. Of women with denials, 4 (14 %) in 2020 and 5 (11 %) in 2021 did not have a screening MRI performed. One patient with DCIS had an MRI denial prior to diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Breast MRI insurance denials were present in 11 % of this high-risk cohort, and 14 % of women with denials did not undergo annual screening. There were significantly more denials in 2021, suggesting worsening barriers for these patients and added burden on providers to appeal for appropriate screening tests.

The Role of Demographic and Clinical Factors in Germline Mutation Testing for Patients with Primary Hyperparathyroidism

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommending genetic counseling in primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) vary. To further delineate current recommendations, this study examined genetic counseling referral patterns and rates of mutations in surgical patients with PHPT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single-institution review was performed of adult patients who underwent parathyroidectomy for presumed sporadic PHPT. Genetic testing indications of hypercalcemia onset ≤ 40 years, multigland disease (MGD), family history (FHx) of PHPT, or other clinical indications suspicious for a PHPT-related endocrinopathy were examined by demographics and mutation detection rates.

RESULTS

Genetic counseling was performed in 237 (37.9%) of 625 patients. Counseling was discussed but not performed in 121 (19.4%) patients. No evidence was noted of genetic referral discussion in the remaining 267 (42.7%). Of these groups, patients who received genetic counseling were youngest, p < 0.001 [median age 55.3 (IQR 43.2, 66.7) years]. The majority of patients with indications of age ≤ 40 years (65.7%), FHx (78.0%), and other clinical indications (70.7%) underwent genetic counseling, while most with MGD (57.0%) did not. Eight mutations were detected in 227 patients (3.5%). Mutations included: MEN1 (n = 2), CDC-73 (n = 4), and CASR (n = 2). Detection was most common in patients with FHx (4/71, 5.6%), then age ≤ 40 years (3/66, 4.5%), and other clinical indications (3/80, 3.8%). No mutations were identified in 48 patients tested solely for MGD.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with onset of hypercalcemia age ≤ 40 years, positive FHx, or other clinical concerns underwent genetic counseling, while most with MGD did not. As no germline mutations were identified in patients with MGD alone, further investigation of MGD as a sole indication for genetic counseling may be warranted.

Uptake of genetic testing among patients seeking cancer genetic counseling in Taiwan

Genetic testing is becoming increasingly available and affordable. Understanding the reasons for individual decisions about genetic testing may assist in the identification of clinically appropriate use of genetic counseling and genetic testing resources. With the ongoing development of cancer genetic counseling services in Taiwan, we conducted this study to understand the characteristics of those seeking cancer genetic counseling and genetic testing and the predictors for undergoing genetic testing after counseling. Cross-sectional with correlational design was used in this study. Surveys completed by patients visiting the genetic counseling clinic at the cancer center included demographics, personal and family history of cancer, and questions on attitudes toward genetic counseling and genetic testing. Multinomial logistic regression was used to analyze the predictors of decision to undergo genetic testing. A total of 120 participants between the years 2018 and 2021 were analyzed, of which 54.2% were referred by health care professionals. The majority (76.7%) had a personal history of cancer and 50% had breast cancer. Over half (53.3%) had a strong family history of cancer defined as two or more 1st-degree relatives having cancer at a young age. Only 35.8% decided to receive genetic testing right after counseling and 47.5% were undecided. The main reason for hesitation or not pursuing testing was cost (41.4%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that a positive attitude toward genetic counseling was significantly associated with the uptake of genetic testing (Odds ratio 7.60, 95% CI 2.34-24.66, p < 0.001). Given the significant number of individuals undecided about genetic testing after counseling, decision aid could be developed to support genetic counseling and increase satisfaction with the testing decision.

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.

Promoters of BRCA testing under insurance coverage for non-metastatic breast cancer patients in Japan: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

We investigated the barriers to and promoters of taking BRCA testing, after the start of national healthcare insurance coverage for non-metastatic breast cancer patients in Japan.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a multi-center, retrospective, cohort study. We included stage 0 to III breast cancer patients who were diagnosed and met the criteria for insurance coverage of BRCA testing between April 2020 and December 2021. We examined the association between BRCA testing and possible exposures: breast cancer diagnosis at 45 years or younger, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) diagnosis at the age of 60 or younger, two or more primary breast cancers, family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer in the third degree of relatives, male breast cancer, medical expense limits, and parity. We used logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

We included 222 patients and 123 (55.4%) of them underwent the test. In univariate analysis, a family history of ovarian cancer (odds ratio (OR) 10.59; 95% CI 1.35-82.96, p = 0.025), diagnosis of breast cancer at the age of 45 or younger (OR 2.78; 95% CI 1.52-5.14, p = 0.0009), and diagnosis of TNBC at the age of 60 or younger (OR 3.95; 95% CI 1.55-10.07, p = 0.004) were associated with taking the test. After multivariate logistic regression analysis, a family history of ovarian cancer (adjusted OR 12.80; 95% CI 1.51-108.80, p = 0.0195), diagnosis of breast cancer at the age of 45 or younger (adjusted OR 4.43; 95% CI 1.98-9.90, p = 0.0003), and TNBC at the age of 60 or younger (adjusted OR 5.28; 95% CI 1.90-14.66, p = 0.0014) were consistently associated.

CONCLUSION

For non-metastatic breast cancer patients whose BRCA testing is covered by insurance, costs would no longer be a definite barrier. Physicians should keep in mind that a family history of ovarian cancer, breast cancer diagnosis at 45 years of age or younger and TNBC diagnosis at 60 years of age or younger are strong promoters.

Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, providing relatives the opportunity for early detection and prevention of cancer. The current standard is for patients to contact and encourage relatives (patient-mediated contact) to undergo counseling and testing. Direct relative contact by the medical team or testing laboratory has shown promise but is complicated by privacy laws and lack of infrastructure. We sought to compare outcomes associated with patient-mediated and direct relative contact for hereditary cancer cascade genetic counseling and testing in the first meta-analysis on this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42020134276). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer cascade testing. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Among relatives included in the meta-analysis, 48% (95% CI, 38 to 58) underwent cascade genetic counseling and 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) cascade genetic testing. Compared with the patient-mediated approach, direct relative contact resulted in significantly higher uptake of genetic counseling for all relatives (63% [95% CI, 49 to 75] v 35% [95% CI, 24 to 48]) and genetic testing for first-degree relatives (62% [95% CI, 49 to 73] v 40% [95% CI, 32 to 48]). Methods of direct contact included telephone calls, letters, and e-mails; respective rates of genetic testing completion were 61% (95% CI, 51 to 70), 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59), and 48% (95% CI, 45 to 50).

CONCLUSION

Most relatives at risk for hereditary cancer do not undergo cascade genetic counseling and testing, forgoing potentially life-saving medical interventions. Compared with patient-mediated contact, direct relative contact increased rates of cascade genetic counseling and testing, arguing for a shift in the care delivery paradigm, to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

Uptake of genetic counseling and testing in a clinic-based population of women with breast cancer

Background

The study was conducted to evaluate racial differences in referral and uptake of genetic counseling (GC) in a clinic‐based population of women with breast cancer.

Methods

Medical records of 150 breast cancer patients at the Karmanos Cancer Institute were reviewed to determine eligibility for GC according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, GC referral rates, and appointment completion rates. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between demographic and clinical factors and GC eligibility and referral.

Results

The mean age at diagnosis was 57.1 (SD 12.6) and 66% of the women were Black. There were 91 women (60.7%) eligible for GC and of those, 54 (61.4%) were referred. After multivariable analyses, factors associated with reduced eligibility were older age at diagnosis (OR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.87,0.95]) and Black race (OR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.15, 0.96]). After additional multivariable analysis, eligibility was associated with an increased likelihood of referral (OR = 5.97, 95% CI [2.29, 15.56]), however, Medicare versus private insurance was associated with a lower likelihood for referral (OR = 0.32, 95% CI [0.12–0.80]. Of those referred, 49 (76.6%) completed an appointment, and 47 had genetic testing. Women with Medicare were also less likely to complete an appointment. Race had no impact on referral or appointment completion.

Conclusions

There were no racial differences in GC referral or appointment completion in a clinic‐based sample of women with breast cancer. Further interventions are needed to promote increased referral and appointment completion for women with breast cancer who are eligible for GC.

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.

Knowledge and perceptions of BRCA1/2 genetic testing and needs of diverse women with a personal or family history of breast cancer in South Florida

The vast majority of (BRCA1/2) genetic testing has been conducted in White women, in particular Ashkenazi Jewish women, with limited information available for Black and Hispanic women. Understanding perspectives of those who are underserved is critical to developing interventions to support inclusive approaches to genetic testing. This qualitative study explored knowledge and perceptions of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among diverse women in South Florida. We also explored participants' information needs. Convenience sampling was used to recruit a diverse group of 15 women with a personal or family history of breast cancer. We conducted semi-structured interviews and used grounded theory method to analyze the data. Five themes were identified: (1) lacking awareness and knowledge of BRCA1/2 genetic testing and results among Black women, (2) perceiving BRCA1/2 genetic testing as beneficial to themselves and a way to be proactive about cancer risk, (3) perceiving BRCA1/2 genetic testing as beneficial to family members, (4) interactions with healthcare providers and the healthcare system that shape genetic testing experiences, and (5) information needs for reducing cancer risk and promoting health. Our findings suggest that diverse underserved women perceived genetic testing as beneficial to themselves and family members. Women needed more information about the BRCA genes and genetic testing, prevention strategies, and the latest breast cancer research. Healthcare providers, particularly nurse practitioners, need to engage diverse high-risk women in discussions about their cancer risk, address unmet information needs, and, in particular, educate Black women about the benefits of pursuing genetic testing.

Impact of changing guidelines on genetic testing and surveillance recommendations in a contemporary cohort of breast cancer survivors with family history of pancreatic cancer

Changing practice guidelines and recommendations have important implications for cancer survivors. This study investigated genetic testing patterns and outcomes and reported family history of pancreatic cancer (FHPC) in a large registry population of breast cancer (BC) patients. Variables including clinical and demographic characteristics, FHPC in a first or second-degree relative, and genetic testing outcomes were analyzed for BC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 in the NYU Langone Health Breast Cancer Database. Among 3334 BC patients, 232 (7%) had a positive FHPC. BC patients with FHPC were 1.68 times more likely to have undergone genetic testing (p < 0.001), but 33% had testing for BRCA1/2 only and 44% had no genetic testing. Pathogenic germline variants (PGV) were identified in 15/129 (11.6%) BC patients with FHPC, and in 145/1315 (11.0%) BC patients without FHPC. Across both groups, updates in genetic testing criteria and recommendations could impact up to 80% of this cohort. Within a contemporary cohort of BC patients, 7% had a positive FHPC. The majority of these patients (56%) had no genetic testing, or incomplete testing by current standards, suggesting under-diagnosis of PC risk. This study supports recommendations for survivorship care that incorporate ongoing genetic risk assessment and counseling.

Achieving universal genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer: Are we there yet? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services.

METHODS

We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.

Financial constraints on genetic counseling and further risk-management decisions among U.S. women at elevated breast cancer risk

Clinical guidelines recommend that women at high risk of breast cancer should consider various risk-management options, which remain widely underutilized. We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 50 high-risk women to understand how financial constraints affect use of genetic counseling, genetic testing, and further risk-management decisions. Inductive analyses revealed three categories of health-related financial constraint: (a) lack of insurance, (b) underinsurance, and (c) other financial constraints (e.g., medical debt, raising children, managing comorbidities). Various breast cancer risk-management actions were limited by these financial constraints, including genetic counseling, genetic testing, enhanced screening, and prophylactic surgeries. Women's narratives also identified complex relationships between financial constraint and perceptions of healthcare providers and insurance companies, particularly as related to bias, price transparency, and potential genetic discrimination. Results from this study have implications for further research and expansion of genetic counseling services delivery to more economically and racially diverse women.

Challenges of Genomic Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancers

Completion of genetic testing is increasingly important for the complex care of patients with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancers (HBOC) and their at-risk family members. Identification of individuals with pathogenic variants has implications for targeted treatment recommendations, risk reduction strategies, increased surveillance recommendations, as well as the genetic testing of family members, known as cascade testing or screening. Due to advances in technology and decreasing costs, what was once single-gene genetic testing has evolved into large-scale multi-gene panel genomic testing. As germline genomic testing for HBOC becomes more and more available, it is important to identify the challenges that are associated with its use. In this manuscript, we review the current issues faced by germline genomic testing for HBOC which include effectively managing the marked increases in genetic referrals, interpreting the vast amount of information yielded by newer testing methods such as next generation sequencing (NGS), recognizing the need for better cascade screening strategies, potential exacerbation of health disparities and improving support for patients navigating the emotional impact related to positive, negative and indeterminate testing results.

Implementing Cancer Genomics in State Health Agencies: Mapping Activities to an Implementation Science Outcome Framework

OBJECTIVE

To show how state health agencies can plan and evaluate activities to strengthen the evidence base for public health genomics, we mapped state cancer genomics activities to the Doyle et al. [Genet Med. 2018;20(9):995-1003] implementation science outcome framework.

METHODS

We identified state health agency activities addressing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome by reviewing project narratives from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cancer Genomics Program funding recipients, leading discussions with state health agencies, and conducting an environmental scan.

RESULTS

State health agencies' cancer genomics activities included developing or adding to state surveillance systems, developing educational materials, bidirectional reporting, promoting health plan policy change, training providers, and promoting recommendations and standards. To address health disparities, programs have tracked group differences, developed culturally appropriate educational materials, and promoted access to services for underserved populations.

CONCLUSION

State health agencies can use the Doyle et al. [Genet Med. 2018;20(9):995-1003] performance objectives and outcome measures to evaluate proposed and ongoing activities. By demonstrating whether activities result in improved outcomes, state health agencies can build the evidence for the implementation of cancer genomics activities.

Impacts of genesurance considerations on genetic counselors' practice and attitudes

Genesurance counseling has been identified as an integral part of many genetic counseling sessions, but little is known about the workflow impacts and genetic counselor perceptions of genesurance-related tasks. In this study, we aimed to characterize how insurance and billing considerations for genetic testing are being incorporated into genetic counselors' practice in the United States, as well as describe current attitudes and challenges associated with their integration. An electronic survey was sent by email to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). A total of 325 American Board of Genetic Counselors-certified genetic counselors who provide direct patient care in the United States for at least 50% of their time were included in data analysis. Results showed that the frequency and timing of various insurance- and billing-related tasks were not consistent among respondents, even those practicing in similar settings. Inadequate training to complete tasks was reported by 64% of respondents, and 47% reported a lack of resources from their employer and/or institution to complete genesurance tasks. Additionally, only 38% of respondents agreed that insurance- and billing-related tasks were within the scope of the genetic counseling practice, and there was little consensus on who respondents believe is the most appropriate person to complete these tasks. When asked how genesurance considerations affected job satisfaction, 85% of respondents reported a negative impact. This study found an inconsistent genesurance workflow among genetic counselors practicing in the United States, a lack of consensus on who should be responsible for genesurance tasks, several challenges associated with completing these tasks, and identifies genesurance considerations as potential risk factors for genetic counselor burnout.

Utilization of genetic testing in breast cancer treatment after implementation of comprehensive multi-disciplinary care

To evaluate the utilization of genetic testing after implementing a comprehensive multi-disciplinary care (cMDC) program for breast cancer and to assess for racial disparities. This retrospective study included patients newly diagnosed with invasive breast cancer 1 year before and 1 year after implementing a cMDC program to assess the rate of genetic referrals. Appropriate genetic referrals were defined by age, family history, triple-negative status, and personal history based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Secondary outcomes included rates of recommended testing, actual testing, compliance, and equity in genetic referrals across demographics (race, insurance type, and hospital site). Statistical analyses used the Fisher exact test or chi-square test. The 431 patients identified included 116 non-cMDC and 315 cMDC patients. Following implementation of cMDC, a significant increase occurred not only in appropriate genetic referrals (35.3%-55.5%) but also in inappropriate referrals (1.7%-15.5%) (P = .001). Overall attendance increased among both cohorts, Caucasians were more compliant with attending their genetic appointment compared to their African American counterparts (non-cMDC P = .025, cMDC P = .004). In the cMDC group, African Americans demonstrated a 6% increase in attendance compared to a 2% decrease among Caucasians. More appropriate genetic referrals were made to those with private insurance following implementation of cMDC. Utilizing a cMDC approach to breast cancer care may help increase appropriate utilization of genetics.

Rates of diagnostic genetic testing in a tertiary ocular genetics clinic

BACKGROUND

Clinical genetics has evolved significantly to become an efficient and effective means of diagnosing disease. Genetic treatments are now being developed which are showing promising results. However, ophthalmic patients are not utilizing genetic testing as part of their diagnostic workups. This paper explores the patient experience at the Ocular Genetics Clinic (OGC) at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) Jones Eye Institute and discusses reasons why patients continue to not pursue genetic testing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review to understand the main reasons why patients were referred to the OGC between 2009 and 2018, with a detailed analysis of why patients did not pursue genetic testing.

RESULTS

Patients mainly did not undergo testing due to the cost of testing. However, patient availability, patient interest, and diagnostic workup also drove a significant amount of this lack of testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Ocular genetic testing is becoming an increasingly beneficial tool for diagnosing ocular disease. However, to date, patients do not utilize this service fully. At the OGC, there are several main drivers for this lack of testing, namely finances, interest/availability, and diagnostic workup. As more ocular genetics clinics are established, it will be imperative to address reasons for forgoing genetic testing and to develop strategies to encourage patients to pursue this testing.

Factors Associated with Declining to Participate in a Pediatric Oncology Next Generation Sequencing Study

PURPOSE

For the advances of pediatric oncology next generation sequencing (NGS) research to equitably benefit all children, a diverse and representative sample of participants is needed. However, little is known about demographic and clinical characteristics that differentiate families who decline enrollment in pediatric oncology NGS research.

METHODS

Demographic and clinical data were retrospectively extracted for 363 pediatric oncology patients (0-21 years) approached for enrollment on Genomes for Kids (G4K), a study examining the feasibility of comprehensive clinical genomic analysis of tumors and paired normal samples. Demographic and clinical factors that significantly differentiated which families declined were subsequently compared to enrollment in Clinical Implementation of Pharmacogenetics (PG4KDS) for 348 families, a pharmacogenomics study with more explicit therapeutic benefit examining genes affecting drug responses and metabolism.

RESULTS

Fifty-three (14.6%) families declined enrollment in G4K. Race/ethnicity was the only variable that significantly differentiated study refusal using multivariate logistic regression, with families of black children more likely to decline enrollment compared to families of non-Hispanic or Hispanic white children. Reasons for declining G4K were generally consistent with other pediatric genomics research, with feeling overwhelmed and insurance discrimination fears most frequently cited. Families of black children were also more likely to decline enrollment in PG4KDS. Thirteen (3.7%) of the 348 families approached for both studies declined PG4KDS.

CONCLUSION

Race/ethnicity differentiated study declination across two different pediatric oncology genomics studies, suggesting enrollment disparities in the context of pediatric oncology genomics research. Genomics research participant samples that do not fully represent racial and ethnic minorities risk further exacerbating health disparities. Additional work is needed to understand the nuances of parental decision making in genomic research and facilitate enrollment of diverse patient populations.

Patients' willingness to reconsider cancer genetic testing after initially declining: Mention it again

Patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes sometimes decline clinically appropriate genetic testing. The purpose of the current study was to understand what preferences, concerns, and desires informed their refusal as well as their current level of interest in being tested. We interviewed patients who had been seen in a hereditary cancer clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and had declined genetic testing. In all, 21 in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. Although patients provided many reasons for declining testing, they most often cited their psychosocial state at the time of the initial invitation to participate in genetic testing as their reason for refusal. The majority (67%) said that they either would or had changed their mind about testing if/when their clinicians 'mentioned it again'. Patients at risk for hereditary cancer who refuse testing at the time of genetic counseling may later change their mind. In particular, if a patient declines testing around the time of a major medical diagnosis or intervention, clinicians who are providing ongoing care may want to raise the topic afresh after the patient has had time to recover from initial distress related to diagnosis or treatment. Strategies to prompt clinicians to have these conversations are suggested.

Should Genetic Testing for Cancer Predisposition Be Standard-of-Care for Women with Invasive Breast Cancer? The Murtha Cancer Center Experience

Currently, genetic testing is offered only to women diagnosed with breast cancer who meet a defined set of criteria and is not included as standard-of-care treatment at the time of diagnosis. Thus, a significant number of women diagnosed with breast cancer may miss the opportunity for precision medical treatment and risk management. The effects of eligibility, timing, and uptake of genetic testing were evaluated in a cohort of women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 2001-2018. Risk status was estimated using NCCN BRCA1/2 testing criteria and panel testing was performed for all women who had genomic DNA available. Of the 1231 women, 57.8% were eligible for genetic testing. Uptake of testing within high-risk women was 42.7% of which 6.6% pursued clinical testing only after a second tumor event. Mutation frequencies were 15.8%, 5.5%, and 4.0% in high-risk women with clinical testing, high-risk women without clinical testing, and low-risk women, respectively. More than 4% of all patients harbored pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutations detected only in the research setting. Inclusion of panel testing at the time of diagnosis would allow for appropriate surveillance and treatment strategies to be employed to reduce the risk of secondary tumors and improve patient outcome.

Blending Insights from Implementation Science and the Social Sciences to Mitigate Inequities in Screening for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes

Genomic screening to identify people at high risk for adult-onset hereditary conditions has potential to improve population health. However, if not equitably accessible, genomics-informed screening programs will exacerbate existing health inequities or give rise to new ones. To realize the disease prevention potential of these screening tools, we need strategies to broaden their reach. We propose a conceptual framework that merges insights from implementation science and sociological research on health inequities. Our framework does three things: first, it broadens the arenas of action beyond those typically addressed in implementation science frameworks; second, it argues for recruiting more diverse partners to share the work of implementation and dissemination; and third, it shows how implementation activities can be coordinated more effectively among those partners. We use screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers (HBOC) as a case to illustrate how this enhanced framework could guide implementation science and distribute the benefits of genomic medicine more equitably. Although our example is specific to genomics, this approach is more broadly applicable to the field of implementation science. Coordinated action among multiple stakeholders could translate a host of new technologies from the bench to the trench without creating new inequities or exacerbating existing ones.

Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer Susceptibility Should Be Offered before Unilateral Abdominally Based Free Flap Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Pathogenic mutations have been identified in approximately 10 percent of patients who present with breast cancer. Notably, failure to identify deleterious genetic mutations has particular implications for patients undergoing abdominally based breast reconstruction, as the donor site can be used only once. The authors sought to determine: (1) how many patients underwent genetic testing before unilateral abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction; (2) how often deleterious mutations were detected after abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction; and (3) the cost-effectiveness of expanding genetic testing in this patient population.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively identified all patients who underwent unilateral abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction at Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute between 2007 and 2016. Chart review was performed to collect relevant demographic and clinical data. Relevant hospital financial data were obtained.

RESULTS

Of the 713 who underwent free flap breast reconstruction, 160 patients met inclusion criteria, and mean follow-up was 5.8 years. Three patients (1.9 percent of 160) underwent contralateral surgery after completing reconstruction, two of whom had BRCA2 and one with ATM mutation. One hundred eleven patients met National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for genetic testing, but of those only 55.9 percent (62 patients) were tested. Financial data revealed that testing every patient in the cohort would result in a net savings of $262,000.

CONCLUSIONS

During a relatively short follow-up period, a small percentage of patients were diagnosed with pathogenic mutations and underwent contralateral mastectomy and reconstruction. However, because of the costliness of surgery and the decreased cost of genetic testing, it is cost-effective to test every patient before unilateral abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction.

Evaluating the role of public health in implementation of genomics-related recommendations: a case study of hereditary cancers using the CDC Science Impact Framework

Public health plays an important role in ensuring access to interventions that can prevent disease, including the implementation of evidence-based genomic recommendations. We used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Science Impact Framework to trace the impact of public health activities and partnerships on the implementation of the 2009 Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Lynch Syndrome screening recommendation and the 2005 and 2013 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing recommendations.The EGAPP and USPSTF recommendations have each been cited by >300 peer-reviewed publications. CDC funds selected states to build capacity to integrate these recommendations into public health programs, through education, policy, surveillance, and partnerships. Most state cancer control plans include genomics-related goals, objectives, or strategies. Since the EGAPP recommendation, major public and private payers now provide coverage for Lynch Syndrome screening for all newly diagnosed colorectal cancers. National guidelines and initiatives, including Healthy People 2020, included similar recommendations and cited the EGAPP and USPSTF recommendations. However, disparities in implementation based on race, ethnicity, and rural residence remain challenges. Public health achievements in promoting the evidence-based use of genomics for the prevention of hereditary cancers can inform future applications of genomics in public health.

Evolution of genetic assessment for BRCA-associated gynaecologic malignancies: a Canadian multisociety roadmap

The landscape of genetic testing in ovarian cancer patients has changed dramatically in recent years. The therapeutic benefits of poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in treatment of BRCA1/2-related ovarian cancers has resulted in an increased demand and urgency for genetic testing results, while technological developments have led to widespread use of multi-gene cancer panels and development of tumour testing protocols. Traditional genetic counselling models are no longer sustainable and must evolve to match the rapid evolution of genetic testing technologies and developments in personalized medicine. Recently, representatives from oncology, clinical genetics, molecular genetics, pathology, and patient advocacy came together to create a national multi-disciplinary Canadian consortium. By aligning stakeholder interests, the BRCA Testing to Treatment (BRCA TtoT) Community of Practice aims to develop a national strategy for tumour and germline BRCA1/2 testing and genetic counselling in women with ovarian cancer. This article serves to provide an overview of the recent evolution of genetic assessment for BRCA1/2-associated gynecologic malignancies and outline a Canadian roadmap to facilitate change, improve genetic testing rates, and ultimately improve outcomes for hereditary ovarian cancer patients and their families.

Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing

Background

Genetic counseling by a Genetic Counselor (GC) is a requirement prior to genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes (GC-mandate policy) for some insurers. This study evaluated the impact of this policy from the patient perspective.

Methods

Surveys were sent to individuals for whom their insurer ordered genetic testing for the cancer susceptibility genes BCRA1 and BRCA2 over a 1 year time period that spanned the introduction of a GC-mandate policy. Responses were assessed by time period (before/after policy introduction) and genetic test completion.

Results

The surveys were completed by 1247/4950 (25.7%) eligible individuals. After policy introduction, there was no change in the proportion of respondents who completed genetic testing (p = 0.13) or had a mutation (p = 0.55). Overall decisional conflict (uncertainty or feeling uninformed) around genetic testing did not change after policy introduction (p = 0.16), but was significantly higher among respondents who did not complete genetic testing (p < 0.01). Although a larger proportion of respondents saw a GC after policy introduction (p < 0.01), fewer did so to better understand their test results (p < 0.01). The proportion of respondents who did not see a GC due to insurance issues/requirements and time restraints was higher among those tested after policy introduction or who did not complete genetic testing (p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, respondents with a household income of $25,000 or greater were 3-times more likely to complete testing.

Conclusions

A GC-mandate policy did not improve decisional conflict or increase the number of deleterious mutations identified and low-income respondents were less likely to complete testing. On the contrary, insurance requirements and time constraints may be preventing individuals at risk from receiving appropriate testing.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2957-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Why Patients Decline Genomic Sequencing Studies: Experiences from the CSER Consortium

Clinical and research settings are increasingly incorporating genomic sequencing (GS) technologies. Previous research has explored reasons for declining genetic testing and participation in genetic studies; however, there is a dearth of literature regarding why potential participants decline participation in GS research, and if any of these reasons are unique to GS. This knowledge is essential to promote informed decision-making and identify potential barriers to research participation and clinical implementation. We aggregated data from seven sites across the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium on each project's procedures for recruitment, and rates of and reasons for decline. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The decline rate for enrollment at the seven CSER sites ranged from 12 to 64% (median 28%) and varied based on age and disease status. Projects differed in their protocols for approaching potential participants and obtaining informed consent. Reasons for declining GS research were reported for 1088 potential participants. Commonly cited reasons were similar to those reported for clinical single gene testing and non-GS genetic research. The most frequently cited reason for decline was study logistics (35%); thus, addressing logistical barriers to enrollment may positively impact GS study recruitment. Privacy and discrimination concerns were cited by 13% of decliners, highlighting the need for researchers and providers to focus educational efforts in this area. The potential psychological burden of pursuing and receiving results from GS and not wanting to receive secondary findings, a concern specific to GS, have been cited as concerns in the literature. A minority of potential participants cited psychological impact (8%) or not wanting to receive secondary findings (2%) as reasons for decline, suggesting that these concerns were not major barriers to participation in these GS studies. Further research is necessary to explore the impact, if any, of different participant groups or study protocols on rates of decline for GS studies. Future studies exploring GS implementation should consider using standardized collection methods to examine reasons for decline in larger populations and more diverse healthcare settings.

The strategic defense of physician autonomy: State public health agencies as countervailing powers

Advances in genetic testing and the aggressive marketing of genetic tests by commercial diagnostic laboratories have driven both consumer demand and the need for unbiased information about how tests should guide healthcare delivery. This paper uses the countervailing powers framework to explore the role of state public health agencies as arbiters of quality and safety, specifically through their efforts to encourage physicians to follow evidence-based recommendations for screening for hereditary cancers. Social scientists have often viewed actions by the state to regulate cost, quality, or safety as a threat to physician autonomy. This paper draws on case studies from two US states-Michigan and Connecticut-to better understand the specific role of state public health agencies, and especially whether their activities to encourage adherence to evidence-based recommendations bolster or subvert the interests of other parties in the healthcare arena. We find that lacking authority to compel provider to follow evidence-based recommendations, they improvised ways to foster compliance voluntarily, for example, by emphasizing the role of the physician as gatekeeper, thus affirming the importance of physician autonomy and clinical judgment. Both states also used public health surveillance data to make rare diseases visible and illustrate gaps between recommendations and practice. Finally, they both showed that following evidence-based recommendations could align the professional and market interests of healthcare stakeholders. Both states employed similar strategies with similar effects, despite substantial differences in the regulatory climate and organizational capacity. Taken as a whole, their activities orchestrated a countervailing response that checked the profit-seeking motives of commercial laboratories. Our findings demonstrate that rather than eroding physician autonomy, state action to monitor healthcare quality and encourage adherence to evidence-based recommendations can actually reinforce physician authority.

Malignant Brenner tumor associated with a germline BRCA2 mutation

•The first woman with a Malignant Brenner tumor and a BRCA2 mutation is described.•Not all women with epithelial ovarian cancers are referred for genetic counseling.•Women should be referred for genetics regardless of how rare the histology.