Physicians’ Awareness and Utilization of Genetic Services in Texas

The UTHealth Houston Adult Cardiovascular Genomics Certificate Program: Efficacy and Impact on Healthcare Professionals

Background

The demand for genetic services has outpaced the availability of resources, challenging clinicians untrained in genetic integration into clinical decision-making. The UTHealth Adult Cardiovascular Genomics Certificate (CGC) program trains non-genetic healthcare professionals to recognize, assess, and refer patients with heritable cardiovascular diseases. This asynchronous online course includes 24 modules in three tiers of increasing complexity, using realistic clinical scenarios, interactive dialogues, quizzes, and tests to reinforce learning. We hypothesized that the CGC will increase genomic competencies in this underserved audience and encourage applying genomic concepts in clinical practice.

Methods

Required course evaluations include pre- and post-assessments, knowledge checks in each module, and surveys for module-specific feedback. After 6 months, longitudinal feedback surveys gathered data on the long-term impact of the course on clinical practice and conducted focused interviews with learners.

Results

The CGC was accredited in September 2022. Principal learners were nurses (24%), nurse practitioners (21%), physicians (16%), and physician assistants. Scores of 283 learners in paired pre- and post-assessments increased specific skills related to recognizing heritable diseases, understanding inheritance patterns, and interpreting genetic tests. Interviews highlighted the CGC's modular structure and linked resources as key strengths. Learners endorsed confidence to use genetic information in clinical practice, such as discussing genetic concepts and risks with patients and referring patients for genetic testing. Learners were highly likely to recommend the CGC to colleagues, citing its role in enhancing heritable disease awareness.

Conclusions

The CGC program effectively empowers non-genetic clinicians to master genomic competencies, fostering collaboration to prevent deaths from heritable cardiovascular diseases, and potentially transforming healthcare education and clinical practice.

Non-genetic physicians' knowledge, attitudes and behavior towards medical genetics

To examine the knowledge, behavior, and attitudes toward medical genetics among obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and neurology residents and specialists, who encounter the highest number of patients with specific genetic disorders, in their everyday practice. The cross-sectional study involved 182 nongenetic residents and specialists in the Republic of Croatia, who completed a validated online questionnaire anonymously and voluntarily. The questionnaire consisted of five groups of questions: general information, knowledge, behavior in practice, attitude toward genetic testing, and additional education in medical genetics. The median score for overall knowledge of medical genetics was 70.2% among obstetrician-gynecologists, 80.5% among pediatricians, and 76.7% among neurologists (P < 0.001, lowest median in obstetrician-gynecologists). When asked about their behavior in daily practice, around 90% of respondents admitted the possibility of not recognizing patients with genetic disorders, which is why more than 90% emphasized the need for additional education in medical genetics. In addition, the respondents showed a positive attitude toward genetic testing, but they did not feel educated enough to interpret the results of genetic testing. The results highlight the need for further genetic education of non-genetic health professionals, which would lead to greater confidence and ability to recognize patients with genetic disorders, select the appropriate genetic testing method and achieve more efficient communication with patients.

Implementation of rapid genomic sequencing in safety-net neonatal intensive care units: protocol for the VIrtual GenOme CenteR (VIGOR) proof-of-concept study

INTRODUCTION

Rapid genomic sequencing (rGS) in critically ill infants with suspected genetic disorders has high diagnostic and clinical utility. However, rGS has primarily been available at large referral centres with the resources and expertise to offer state-of-the-art genomic care. Critically ill infants from racial and ethnic minority and/or low-income populations disproportionately receive care in safety-net and/or community settings lacking access to state-of-the-art genomic care, contributing to unacceptable health equity gaps. VIrtual GenOme CenteR is a 'proof-of-concept' implementation science study of an innovative delivery model for genomic care in safety-net neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We developed a virtual genome centre at a referral centre to remotely support safety-net NICU sites predominantly serving racial and ethnic minority and/or low-income populations and have limited to no access to rGS. Neonatal providers at each site receive basic education about genomic medicine from the study team and identify eligible infants. The study team enrols eligible infants (goal n of 250) and their parents and follows families for 12 months. Enrolled infants receive rGS, the study team creates clinical interpretive reports to guide neonatal providers on interpreting results, and neonatal providers return results to families. Data is collected via (1) medical record abstraction, (2) surveys, interviews and focus groups with neonatal providers and (3) surveys and interviews with families. We aim to examine comprehensive implementation outcomes based on the Proctor Implementation Framework using a mixed methods approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the institutional review board of Boston Children's Hospital (IRB-P00040496) and participating sites. Participating families are required to provide electronic written informed consent and neonatal provider consent is implied through the completion of surveys. The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and data will be made accessible per National Institutes of Health (NIH) policies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05205356/clinicaltrials.gov.

Genomic medicine in neonatal care: progress and challenges

During the neonatal period, many genetic disorders present and contribute to neonatal morbidity and mortality. Genomic medicine-the use of genomic information in clinical care- has the potential to significantly reduce morbidity and mortality in the neonatal period and improve outcomes for this population. Diagnostic genomic testing for symptomatic newborns, especially rapid testing, has been shown to be feasible and have diagnostic and clinical utility, particularly in the short-term. Ongoing studies are assessing the feasibility and utility, including personal utility, of implementation in diverse populations. Genomic screening for asymptomatic newborns has also been studied, and the acceptability and feasibility of such an approach remains an active area of investigation. Emerging precision therapies, with examples even at the "n-of-1" level, highlight the promise of precision diagnostics to lead to early intervention and improve outcomes. To sustainably implement genomic medicine in neonatal care in an ethical, effective, and equitable manner, we need to ensure access to genetics and genomics knowledge, access to genomic tests, which is currently limited by payors, feasible processes for ordering these tests, and access to follow up in the clinical and research realms. Future studies will provide further insight into enablers and barriers to optimize implementation strategies.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice About the Process of Genetic Counselling Among Clinicians

Introduction Clinicians agree with the fact that the impact of genetics in the field of medicine is humongous. They have to cope with the rapid advances in the field of clinical genetics and offer the best treatment to the patients at the right time. Disease with an underlying genetic cause not only involves the patient but also the family and the community. In the process of genetic counseling, the patient and the family are educated about the genetic basis of the disorder. This helps the patient and the family to make a well-informed decision. It also helps to reduce the genetic burden of the disease in the community over a period of time. In this regard, knowledge, attitude, and practice about the process of genetic counseling among clinicians is imperative. Methods A structured pre-validated questionnaire was distributed amongst 60 clinicians from different departments. Their responses were assessed based on the Likert scale. The data obtained were analyzed using descriptive statistics and expressed in percentages.  Results In the present study, nearly 90% of the clinicians felt that it was important to gather a multi-generational family history of the patient and advise them about inheritance patterns, recurrence risk, and genetic tests for a disorder with an underlying genetic cause. The need to educate the family members regarding the importance of genetic tests and referral to appropriate support groups if they test positive for a genetic disorder receive a positive response. Mostly the participants agreed that parents of children and couples at risk of having a child affected by a genetic disease should undergo genetic counseling. Conclusion Clinicians may not always be aware of the underlying genetic cause and genetic tests available or may face a paucity of time to counsel the patient and the family. Genetic counseling needs to be done at length in multiple sessions, and it is essential to reduce the burden of genetic disorders in society.

Role of genomic medicine and implementing equitable access for critically ill infants in neonatal intensive care units

Genetic disorders are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in infants admitted to neonatal intensive care units. This population has immense potential to benefit from genomic medicine, as early precision diagnosis is critical to early personalized management. However, the implementation of genomic medicine in neonatology thus far has arguably worsened health inequities, and strategies are urgently needed to achieve equitable access to genomics in neonatal care. In this perspective, we demonstrate the utility of genomic sequencing in critically ill infants and highlight three key recommendations to advance equitable access: recruitment of underrepresented populations, education of non-genetics providers to empower practice of genomic medicine, and development of innovative infrastructure to implement genomic medicine across diverse settings.

Attitudes of Australian dermatologists on the use of genetic testing: A cross-sectional survey with a focus on melanoma

Background: Melanoma genetic testing reportedly increases preventative behaviour without causing psychological harm. Genetic testing for familial melanoma risk is now available, yet little is known about dermatologists' perceptions regarding the utility of testing and genetic testing ordering behaviours. Objectives: To survey Australasian Dermatologists on the perceived utility of genetic testing, current use in practice, as well as their confidence and preferences for the delivery of genomics education. Methods: A 37-item survey, based on previously validated instruments, was sent to accredited members of the Australasian College of Dermatologists in March 2021. Quantitative items were analysed statistically, with one open-ended question analysed qualitatively. Results: The response rate was 56% (256/461), with 60% (153/253) of respondents between 11 and 30 years post-graduation. While 44% (112/252) of respondents agreed, or strongly agreed, that genetic testing was relevant to their practice today, relevance to future practice was reported significantly higher at 84% (212/251) (t = -9.82, p < 0.001). Ninety three percent (235/254) of respondents reported rarely or never ordering genetic testing. Dermatologists who viewed genetic testing as relevant to current practice were more likely to have discussed (p < 0.001) and/or offered testing (p < 0.001). Respondents indicated high confidence in discussing family history of melanoma, but lower confidence in ordering genetic tests and interpreting results. Eighty four percent (207/247) believed that genetic testing could negatively impact life insurance, while only 26% (63/244) were aware of the moratorium on using genetic test results in underwriting in Australia. A minority (22%, 55/254) reported prior continuing education in genetics. Face-to-face courses were the preferred learning modality for upskilling. Conclusion: Australian Dermatologists widely recognise the relevance of genetic testing to future practice, yet few currently order genetic tests. Future educational interventions could focus on how to order appropriate genetic tests and interpret results, as well as potential implications on insurance.

Genetic testing for patients at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

ABSTRACT

The field of cancer genetic testing has made great advances in correctly identifying patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes. These tests, used during a genetic consultation, promote earlier detection of cancer and potentially increase survival. Despite these advancements, a large number of persons at risk for BRCA1/2 mutations remain untested due to a shortage of genetic counselors and lack of clinician knowledge on how to properly screen, identify, and refer patients to genetic counseling. We suggest team-based practices that physician associates/assistants (PAs) and NPs can use in collaboration with genetic counselors. We also explore how PAs and NPs can alleviate the burden on genetic counselors by taking a comprehensive family history, providing elements of counseling, and ordering appropriate genetic tests. This approach maximizes the amount of time the patient spends receiving actual genetic counseling. By creating this collaborative relationship, PAs and NPs can help increase the number of qualifying patients who receive genetic testing and counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes.

When Is an Isolated Olecranon Fracture Pathognomonic for Osteogenesis Imperfecta?

BACKGROUND

Isolated fractures of the olecranon process of the ulna in pediatric patients with open physes are classically considered pathognomonic for osteogenesis imperfecta (OI). The purpose of this study was to distinguish the clinical manifestations of isolated olecranon fractures in patients with and without OI to help practitioners assess when further evaluation for OI may be necessary.

METHODS

All patients younger than 18 years old who were treated for an isolated olecranon fracture at a pediatric tertiary care center between 2009 and 2021 were identified. Patients without radiographs available for review, those with known skeletal dysplasia other than OI, and patients with multiple fractures (eg, polytraumas) or with concomitant dislocations were excluded. Of the 701 patients identified, 403 were included for analysis. Demographic variables, mechanism of injury, treatment type, and determination of OI diagnosis were collected. Patients with a previously confirmed diagnosis of OI or with genetic confirmation of OI following their fracture were designated as OI (+), and the remainder were designated OI (-). The Mann-Whitney U and χ2 tests were used to compare groups.

RESULTS

Of the 403 patients, the median age was 7.8 years (interquartile range 5.2 to 12.5), and 270 (67%) were male. There were 14 confirmed cases of OI (3.5%). The OI (+) and OI (-) groups did not differ significantly by age or sex (P>0.05). OI (+) patients were more likely to sustain an injury from low-energy mechanisms (86% vs. 32%, P<0.001), sustain displaced fractures (86% vs. 21%, P<0.001) and undergo operative treatment (86% vs. 20%, P<0.001), and to report a history of previous fracture (79% vs. 16%, P<0.001) than OI (-) patients. 36% of OI (+) patients sustained a second olecranon fracture during the study period; there were no subsequent olecranon fractures in the OI (-) group.

CONCLUSIONS

Isolated olecranon fractures may not be pathognomonic for OI. However, orthopaedists must be vigilant about the possibility of OI in patients who sustain displaced, isolated olecranon fractures under low-energy mechanisms with a history of previous fracture(s).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Evaluation of barriers to referral for cancer predisposition syndromes in pediatric oncology patients in the United States

Cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) are underdiagnosed in the pediatric population, though the diagnosis of a CPS has important implications for the child and their family. CPS are often diagnosed by geneticists or oncologists with expertise in CPS following a malignancy. This requires a member of the care team, most commonly, the treating oncologist to suspect a CPS and refer the patient for CPS assessment. An online survey was distributed to members of the Children's Oncology Group to elucidate current referral practices and barriers to referral for patients suspected to have a CPS. Of the 183 respondents, 86.1% was pediatric oncologists and most (68.5%) used formal guidelines to aid in assessment. Most respondents indicated they would rarely refer patients with tumors highly associated with CPS for genetic assessment. Participants were more likely to refer patients with malignancy and additional features of a CPS than for a specific type of cancer, despite the use of guidelines. Parent knowledge of family history was considered the most challenging barrier to obtaining a family history, though a thorough pedigree was not consistently elicited. Providers indicated the most significant barrier to referral for CPS assessment was priority given the patient's immediate care needs. Identification of these barriers provides direction to focus efforts to increase referrals. Provider education about CPS, clear referral guidelines, and implementation of or increased collaboration with a genetic counselor in the pediatric oncology clinic may encourage CPS assessment and enable oncologists to focus on the patient's immediate care needs.

Primary Care Providers' Use of Genetic Services in the Southeast United States: Barriers, Facilitators, and Strategies

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Collectively, genetic diseases are not that rare, and with increasing availability of genetics-informed healthcare management, primary care providers (PCPs) are more often asked to screen for or provide genetic services. Previous studies have identified barriers that impact PCPs' ability to provide genetic services, including limited knowledge, training, and time/resources. This study set out to identify specific barriers limiting genetics service provision by PCPs within the Southeastern Regional Genetics Network (SERN) and resources that would help eliminate those barriers.

METHODS

PCPs were recruited through provider networks and invited to participate in semi-structured interviews, conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were independently coded by 2 coders using MAXQDA software. Thematic analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Eleven interviews were conducted. Three predominant themes emerged from the data regarding factors impacting use of genetic services: system-wide factors, provider-specific factors, and patient factors. System-wide barriers included a lack of genetics providers and logistic challenges, which led to some PCPs coordinating referrals with other specialists or independently managing patients. Regarding provider-specific barriers, PCPs reported lack of genetics knowledge making referrals challenging. When possible, many PCPs contacted genetics providers for assistance. When not possible, some PCPs reached out to other colleagues or specialists for guidance. Patient-specific barriers included concerns or lack of information regarding genetics and unmet social needs. Many PCPs provided additional education regarding genetics appointments or testing benefits to their patients. Assistance from genetic counselors, electronic medical record systems that support referral to genetics, prior experience referring to genetics, established communication channels with genetics professionals, and highly motivated patients all facilitated improved collaboration with genetic services. PCPs provided suggestions for future resources to support interactions with genetics, including clear referral guidelines, increased access to genetics providers, improved test ordering processes, increased access to genetic education, and communication systems.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs face barriers at 3 different levels when engaging with genetic services: systems, providers, and patients. This study identified strategies that PCPs use to address these barriers, which are dependent on individual resources and practice settings. These strategies demonstrate resourcefulness in working to incorporate genetics into clinics operating at maximum capacity. By targeting barriers that uniquely impact providers, systems, and patients, as well as building upon strategies that PCPs are already using, medical providers can support PCPs to help with the provision of genetic services.

The diagnostic trajectory of infants and children with clinical features of genetic disease

We characterized US pediatric patients with clinical indicators of genetic diseases, focusing on the burden of disease, utilization of genetic testing, and cost of care. Curated lists of diagnosis, procedure, and billing codes were used to identify patients with clinical indicators of genetic disease in healthcare claims from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Database (13,076,038 unique patients). Distinct cohorts were defined to represent permissive and conservative estimates of the number of patients. Clinical phenotypes suggestive of genetic diseases were observed in up to 9.4% of pediatric patients and up to 44.7% of critically-ill infants. Compared with controls, patients with indicators of genetic diseases had higher utilization of services (e.g., mean NICU length of stay of 31.6d in a cohort defined by multiple congenital anomalies or neurological presentations compared with 10.1d for patients in the control population (P < 0.001)) and higher overall costs. Very few patients received any genetic testing (4.2-8.4% depending on cohort criteria). These results highlight the substantial proportion of the population with clinical features associated with genetic disorders and underutilization of genetic testing in these populations.

Genetic Referral Patterns and Responses to Clinical Scenarios: A Survey of Primary Care Providers and Clinical Geneticists

Introduction:

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are considered the gatekeepers of genetic services, but they often underutilize or inappropriately utilize such services, leading to lack of early treatment, incorrect diagnoses, and unnecessary procedures. This study aims to delineate PCP referral patterns, including the frequency of, motivators for, and barriers to genetic referrals and testing in the present landscape of genomics.

Methods:

A 34-item online survey was distributed to PCPs in the United States (US). PCP demographics, practice characteristics, and referral patterns, motivators, and barriers were analyzed. Six hypothetical clinical scenarios included in the survey also were presented to a cohort of clinical geneticists. We calculated PCPs’ rates of ordering genetic tests and of referral to genetics services in the past year. Rates and responses to clinical scenarios were compared based on respondents’ personal and practice characteristics.

Results:

A total of 95 PCPs and 25 clinical geneticists participated. Among the PCPs, 79% reported referring and 50% reported ordering genetic testing in the last year. PCPs with genetic counselors (GCs) in their clinic referred at significantly higher rates than those without (P = .008). White PCPs referred at significantly higher rates compared to Black or African American PCPs (P = .009). The most commonly reported motivators for referring patients to genetic services were preference for specialist coordination, lack of knowledge, and family’s desire for risk information. The most commonly reported barriers were patient refusal, provider concerns about costs to patients, and uncertainty of when a genetic referral is appropriate. In response to clinical scenarios, clinical geneticists were in agreement about the need for genetic testing or referral for 2 of the scenarios. For these 2 scenarios, only 48% and 71% of PCPs indicated that they would offer genetic testing or referral, respectively.

Conclusions:

Responses to clinical scenarios suggest that it is not clear to PCPs when referrals or testing are needed. Collaboration with GCs is one approach to reducing barriers to and improving PCPs’ utilization of genetic services. Clear guidelines from clinical geneticists may help facilitate appropriate use of genetics services by PCPs. Additional research is needed to further describe barriers that PCPs face in genetic testing/referrals.

The impact of genetic counseling on women's grief and coping following termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly

Pregnancy termination for fetal anomaly (TFA) is a unique experience that can cause women to develop long-term complicated grief. Although a woman's experience with her healthcare providers has been previously identified as an important factor in coping, studies have shown that many women report their health care as lacking to some extent. Given the overlap in women's needs and the practice scope of a genetic counselor (GC), this study aimed to examine how genetic counseling may impact coping and explore women's expectations of GCs pre- and post-TFA. An online survey, which included the brief COPE and the short version of the Perinatal Grief Scale, was distributed among private online support groups. Appropriate statistical analysis tools, such as the Wilcoxon rank-sum and t test, were utilized for quantitative analysis of the 124 responses, and inductive content analysis was utilized for qualitative analysis. Of those who underwent TFA within the last two years, women who saw a GC utilized active coping, planning, and positive reframing significantly more than women who did not see a GC (p = 0.001, p = 0.031, p = 0.027, respectively). GCs were perceived to have a positive impact on coping when providing information, objective care, emotional support, support resources, and follow-up care; these practices encouraged confidence in their personal decision-making and gave women hope for the future. This study not only identified key counseling roles for GCs prior to a TFA, but also demonstrated that genetic counseling prior to TFA may be beneficial to coping. Further studies are warranted to explore the needs of a more diverse population and to identify appropriate genetic counseling training methods to support women pursuing TFA.

Genetic counselors' perspectives on population-based screening for BRCA-related hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome

Early identification of those with BRCA-related Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome has the potential for early cancer detection and/or prevention; as such, these conditions are considered Tier 1 genetic conditions by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Given the decreasing cost of genetic testing, population-based screening (PBS) for such conditions may be the next step toward cancer prevention. This study aimed to understand genetic counselors' perspectives toward offering PBS for the Tier 1 conditions BRCA-related HBOC and Lynch syndrome. An online survey was distributed to 3,609 members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. A total of 367 individuals participated in the study. Fifty percent of respondents felt that PBS for inherited cancer should not be offered; 93.3% felt that the current healthcare system is unprepared for implementation of PBS. However, most respondents agreed that PBS should be implemented within the next 10 years. Attitudes toward offering PBS were associated with respondents' work setting, cancer specialization, and perceived preparedness (p's < 0.05). The most commonly reported barriers to the implementation of PBS were shortage of genetic professionals and lack of infrastructure. Data in this study provide evidence that infrastructural barriers and educational gaps of non-genetic professionals would need to be addressed before successful integration of PBS into the healthcare system.

Preparing Medical Specialists to Practice Genomic Medicine: Education an Essential Part of a Broader Strategy

Developing a competent workforce will be crucial to realizing the promise of genomic medicine. The preparedness of medical specialists without specific genetic qualifications to play a role in this workforce has long been questioned, prompting widespread calls for education across the spectrum of medical training. Adult learning theory indicates that for education to be effective, a perceived need to learn must first be established. Medical specialists have to perceive genomic medicine as relevant to their clinical practice. Here, we review what is currently known about medical specialists’ perceptions of genomics, compare these findings to those from the genetics era, and identify areas for future research. Previous studies reveal that medical specialists’ views on the clinical utility of genomic medicine are mixed and are often tempered by several concerns. Specialists generally perceive their confidence and understanding to be lacking; subsequently, they welcome additional educational support, although specific needs are rarely detailed. Similar findings from the genetics era suggest that these challenges are not necessarily new but on a different scale and relevant to more specialties as genomic applications expand. While existing strategies developed for genetic education and training may be suitable for genomic education and training, investigating the educational needs of a wider range of specialties is critically necessary to determine if tailored approaches are needed and, if so, to facilitate these. Other interventions are also required to address some of the additional challenges identified in this review, and we encourage readers to see education as part of a broader implementation strategy.

Preferences of women with epithelial ovarian cancer for aspects of genetic testing

Background

Although genetic testing is recommended for women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), little is known about patient preferences for various testing options. We measured relative preferences for attributes of testing in women with EOC referred for genetic counseling.

Methods

Subjects were recruited to participate in a discrete-choice-experiment survey to elicit preferences for attributes of genetic testing: out-of-pocket cost ($0, $100, $250, or $1000), probability of a deleterious mutation (60, 80%, or 88%), probability of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) result (5, 20%, or 40%), sample requirements (blood or saliva), and turn-around time (1, 2 or 4 weeks). Subjects viewed educational videos followed by a series of choices between pairs of constructed genetic tests with varying attribute levels. Random-parameters logit was used to estimate preference weights for attribute levels. Relative importance weights and money-equivalent values were calculated.

Results

Ninety-four patients were enrolled; 68 (76.4%) presented for genetic counseling. Test cost was the most important attribute to subjects (importance weight = 41 out of 100) followed by probability to detect deleterious mutations (36) and probability of a VUS result (20). Sample requirements and turnaround time did not drive test choices. Subjects were willing to pay an additional $155 and $70 for incremental 5% improvements in the probability to detect deleterious mutations and probability of a VUS result. At genetics consultation, 55/68 (80.9%) subjects chose multigene testing.

Conclusions

Low out-of-pocket cost, high probability of detecting deleterious mutations and high probability of a VUS result are preferred by patients with EOC considering genetic testing.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40661-019-0066-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Validation of a digital identification tool for individuals at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes

Background

The number of individuals meeting criteria for genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) is far less than the number that actually receive it. To facilitate identification of patients at risk for HCS, Counsyl developed a digital identification tool (digital ID tool) to match personal and family cancer history to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) BRCA-related Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC), Lynch syndrome, and polyposis testing criteria in one-to-one, automated fashion. The purpose of this study was to validate the ability of the digital ID tool to accurately identify histories that do and do not meet NCCN testing criteria.

Methods

Third-party recorded three-generation pedigrees were retrospectively reviewed by a certified genetic counselor (CGC) to determine if independent events included in pedigree histories met NCCN guidelines, and were then sorted into groups: high risk events (meets criteria) and low risk events (does not meet criteria). Events were entered into the digital ID tool to determine the extent of its concordance with events sorted by CGC review. Statistical tests of accuracy were calculated at a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

One hundred ninety-seven pedigrees were reviewed consecutively representing 765 independent events for analysis across groups. 382/382 (100%) high risk events identified by the digital ID tool and 381/383 (99.47%) low risk events identified by the digital ID tool were concordant with CGC sorting. The digital ID tool had a sensitivity of 100% (99.04–100% CI) and specificity of 99.48% (98.13–99.94% CI). The overall accuracy of the digital ID tool was estimated to be 99.74% (99.06–99.97% CI), reflecting the rate at which the digital ID tool reached the same conclusion as that of CGC review of pedigree events for the recommendation of genetic testing for individuals at risk for HCS.

Conclusions

The digital ID tool accurately matches NCCN criteria in one-to-one fashion to identify at-risk individuals for HCS and may be useful in clinical practice, specifically for BRCA-related HBOC and Lynch Syndrome.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13053-018-0099-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.