Physician Risk Assessment Knowledge Regarding BRCA Genetics Testing

A Survey of the Awareness and Educational Needs of Nurses in Nagasaki Prefecture Regarding Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge and educational needs with regard to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer among nurses working in breast cancer care in the Nagasaki Prefecture. In breast cancer care, the identification of patients at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer is necessary for the implementation of genetic testing and counseling. Nurses should be involved in this process, since they play a crucial role in the care of patients with breast cancer. However, the knowledge regarding hereditary breast and ovarian cancer among nurses working in oncology care in Japan has not been assessed. The design of this study is cross-sectional design. We distributed 597 surveys to nurses working in breast cancer care. The surveys assessed the nurses' demographic data, their current knowledge and practices regarding cancer genetics and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and their attitude and preferences regarding learning about the condition. We received 317 valid replies. Nurses had limited knowledge about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer characteristics: 41.6% reported that they do not know about the condition, whereas less than 10% knew its characteristics. However, nurses were aware of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer significance and were willing to learn about it: 91% wished to learn about the condition, and 88.6% wanted to participate in study group meetings. Further, nurses' preferences regarding educational programs were clarified. Overall, our results show that educational programs should be implemented to advance nurses' knowledge of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer characteristics.

Awareness of genetic counseling and genetic testing for hereditary gynecologic cancers among Korean healthcare providers: A survey

We conducted a survey to evaluate the awareness of genetic counseling and testing for hereditary gynecologic cancers among Korean healthcare providers. We performed an on-the-spot survey using 29 questions on respondents' basic information, awareness of pre/post-test genetic counseling, genetic information management, and related social issues. We surveyed healthcare providers who attended the 2019 Hereditary Gynecologic Cancer Symposium organized by the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Of the 108 attendees, 85 (78.7%) participated in the survey. Among them, 45% (37/83) and 40% (33/83) did not have a separate clinic and had a dedicated team for genetic counseling in their institutions, respectively. Most respondents (60/76, 79%) recommended genetic testing for all women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Many respondents simultaneously (20/85, 24%) or sequentially (45/85, 53%) tested for both pathogenic somatic and germline variants, whereas a few respondents (2/85, 2%) checked for only pathogenic somatic variants using tissue samples. Only 20% (17/85) of the respondents recommended genetic testing for all women with endometrial cancer; meanwhile, 68% (58/86) offered the test based on the results of the screening test or family history. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was recommended to unaffected women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants by 69.4% of the respondents (59/85). Most respondents (73/85, 85.9%) needed a manual on bioethics law; a few required a clinical update of hereditary cancer (73/85, 85.9%). The awareness of genetic counseling and testing and the pattern of clinical practice for hereditary gynecologic cancers differ among institutions and regions in Korea. A discussion on these issues and the development of an integrated manual for healthcare providers are required.

Knowledge and opinions regarding BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing among primary care physicians

BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) testing is standard for individuals with personal and/or family history suggestive of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. The indications for testing have been expanding. To accommodate the need, incorporation of cancer genetic services into the practice of non-genetic healthcare providers should be considered. We carried out a survey to evaluate the knowledge and opinions regarding BRCA1/2 testing among primary care providers. The survey was sent to 245 Obstetrics/Gynecology and 97 Family Medicine physicians in the UPMC network. Eighty-six completed the survey between July 2015 and September 2015. The average correct responses to knowledge questions was 73%. A few respondents reported being completely confident, and ~50% reported being somewhat confident, in providing BRCA1/2-related information. Respondents selected genetic specialists and oncologists as the most qualified to provide cancer genetic services. Several perceived barriers and motivating factors to the implementation of BRCA1/2 testing in primary care were identified. The findings from this study suggested that primary care providers were not uniformly ready to provide BRCA1/2 genetic testing. Availability of professional society guidelines and evidence of testing's usefulness might motivate the incorporation of BRCA1/2 genetic testing into primary care practices. These findings would help guide future educational efforts to promote provision of cancer genetic services by non-genetic professionals.

Population Whole Exome Screening: Primary Care Provider Attitudes About Preparedness, Information Avoidance, and Nudging

Compared to clinicians previously surveyed, primary care providers employed in a health system known for clinical genomics were more likely to have ordered or referred a patient for genetic testing, but had only modestly more genetics training and reported similarly low levels of comfort answering patient questions about genetic risk. Most supported population genomic screening, reported willingness to get screened themselves, and judged a hypothetical patient's decision to be screened favorably relative to a similar patient's decision to decline screening. Stakeholder perceptions of the ethical appropriateness of nudging at-risk patients to discuss testing with counselors were mixed.

Expectations versus reality: The impact of men's expectancy violations in conversations with healthcare providers about BRCA-related cancer risks

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the experiences of men with germline pathogenic BRCA variants or who have a first-degree family member who tested positive for BRCA regarding their interactions with healthcare providers about their cancer risks.

METHODS

25 phone interviews were conducted with men at risk for hereditary cancer. Data were analyzed using an iterative approach where emergent themes were compared to existing research and theories.

RESULTS

Informed by Expectancy Violation Theory (EVT), a model for understanding men's experiences when interacting with healthcare providers about their BRCA-related cancer risks-comprised of three stages including expectation, violation, and outcomes-was developed.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings show the importance of men's basic expectations for patient-provider interactions and how violations of expectations impact perceptions, communication, and behavior. Outcomes of negative expectancy violations may impact not only men with BRCA-related cancer risks but also their family members.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Healthcare providers can be mindful about the ways in which they positively and negatively violate patients' expectations. Patients can engage in self-advocacy behaviors, and advocacy organizations can design resources for patients and healthcare providers to encourage and support effective communication between providers, patients, and their family members.

[Knowledge and attitude among general practitioners in Andalusia (Spain) on the identification of subjects at high risk of breast and colorectal cancer]

AIMS

To assess the knowledge and attitude among general practitioners in Andalusia on the identification of subjects with elevated risk for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and hereditary cancers, as well as to detect barriers to accessibility to the screening programs.

METHODS

A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted based on an online survey of 24 questions. Data are shown as frequencies, and association tests were statistically used. The level of significance was set at<.05.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was 32%, of which 224 were valid, and included 56% men, and a mean age±DE of 46±12 years. Established criteria for high risk breast cancer were already known by 71.4% [95% CI 65-76], being worst in those living in big cities (P<.014). Among general practitioners, 86% were allowed to order mammography in women with lumps or at moderate to high risk for breast cancer. As regards colorectal cancer, 87.9% of general practitioners knew the risk factors. Among general practitioners, 58.2% [95% CI 49-62] were allowed to order a colonoscopy if clinical suspicion was present, especially if they lived in large cities (P<.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The screening program for breast cancer is well-known by general practitioners, and the access to mammography is successful. Most of the general practitioners consider the follow-up program for persons at high risk for colorectal cancer appropriate, although half of those surveyed had some barriers to ordering colonoscopy. Knowledge on hereditary cancer is limited, and varies among areas. There is also a general lack of awareness on hereditary cancer and genetic counselling units.

Health care professionals' attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage when outcomes are poor. Personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction, based on genetic and epidemiological information and risk stratified management in adult women could improve outcomes. Examining health care professionals' (HCP) attitudes to ovarian cancer risk stratified management, willingness to support women, self-efficacy (belief in one's own ability to successfully complete a task), and knowledge about ovarian cancer will help identify training needs in anticipation of personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction being introduced.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was distributed online to HCPs via relevant professional organisations in the UK. Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise comparisons were used to compare knowledge and self-efficacy scores between different types of HCPs, and attitudes toward population-based genetic testing and risk stratified management were described. Content analysis was undertaken of free text responses concerning HCPs willingness to discuss risk management options with women.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six eligible HCPs completed the survey: oncologists (31%); genetics clinicians (30%); general practitioners (22%); gynaecologists (10%); nurses (4%); and 'others'. Scores for knowledge of ovarian cancer and genetics, and self-efficacy in conducting a cancer risk consultation were generally high but significantly lower for general practitioners compared to genetics clinicians, oncologists, and gynaecologists. Support for population-based genetic testing was not high (<50%). Attitudes towards ovarian cancer risk stratification were mixed, although the majority of participants indicated a willingness to discuss management options with patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger samples are required to investigate attitudes to population-based genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk and to establish why some HCPs are hesitant to offer testing to all adult female patients. If ovarian cancer risk assessment using genetic testing and non-genetic information including epidemiological information is rolled out on a population basis, training will be needed for HCPs in primary care to enable them to provide appropriate support to women at each stage of the process.

Primary care providers' cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: A systematic review and research agenda

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) can play a critical role in helping patients receive the preventive health benefits of cancer genetic risk information. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to identify studies of US PCPs' knowledge, attitudes, and communication-related behaviors regarding genetic tests that could inform risk-stratification approaches for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in order to describe current findings and research gaps.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of six electronic databases to identify peer-reviewed empirical articles relating to US PCPs and genetic testing for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer published in English from 2008 to 2016. We reviewed these data and used narrative synthesis methods to integrate findings into a descriptive summary and identify research needs.

RESULTS

We identified 27 relevant articles. Most focused on genetic testing for breast cancer (23/27) and colorectal cancer risk (12/27); only one study examined testing for prostate cancer risk. Most articles addressed descriptive research questions (24/27). Many studies (24/27) documented PCPs' knowledge, often concluding that providers' knowledge was incomplete. Studies commonly (11/27) examined PCPs' attitudes. Across studies, PCPs expressed some concerns about ethical, legal, and social implications of testing. Attitudes about the utility of clinical genetic testing, including for targeted cancer screening, were generally favorable; PCPs were more skeptical of direct-to-consumer testing. Relatively fewer studies (9/27) examined PCPs' communication practices regarding cancer genetic testing.

DISCUSSION

This review indicates a need for investigators to move beyond descriptive research questions related to PCPs' knowledge and attitudes about cancer genetic testing. Research is needed to address important gaps regarding the development, testing, and implementation of innovative interventions and educational programs that can improve PCPs' genetic testing knowledge, assuage concerns about the appropriateness of cancer genetic testing, and promote open and effective patient-provider communication about genetic risk and genetic testing.

Factors Associated with Interest in Gene-Panel Testing and Risk Communication Preferences in Women from BRCA1/2 Negative Families

Scientific advances have allowed the development of multiplex gene-panels to assess many genes simultaneously in women who have tested negative for BRCA1/2. We examined correlates of interest in testing for genes that confer modest and moderate breast cancer risk and risk communication preferences for women from BRCA negative families. Female first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients who tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations (N = 149) completed a survey assessing multiplex genetic testing interest and risk communication preferences. Interest in testing was high (70 %) and even higher if results could guide risk-reducing behavior changes such as taking medications (79 %). Participants preferred to receive genomic risk communications from a variety of sources including: primary care physicians (83 %), genetic counselors (78 %), printed materials (71 %) and the web (60 %). Factors that were independently associated with testing interest were: perceived lifetime risk of developing cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 1.67: 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.06-2.65) and high cancer worry (OR = 3.12: CI 1.28-7.60). Findings suggest that women from BRCA1/2 negative families are a unique population and may be primed for behavior change. Findings also provide guidance for clinicians who can help develop genomic risk communications, promote informed decision making and customize behavioral interventions.