Barriers and Facilitators to Genetic Education, Risk Assessment, and Testing: Considerations on Advancing Equitable Genetics Care

Developing and Assessing a Scalable Digital Health Tool for Pretest Genetic Education in Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer: Mixed Methods Design

BACKGROUND

National guidelines recommend germline genetic testing (GT) for all patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. With recent advances in targeted therapies and GT, these guidelines are expected to expand to include broader groups of patients with colorectal cancer. However, there is a shortage of genetic professionals to provide the necessary education and support for informed consent. As such, there is a pressing need to identify alternative approaches to facilitate and expedite access to GT.

OBJECTIVE

This study describes the development of a pretest education intervention, Nest-CRC, to facilitate the uptake of germline GT among patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. Patients with early-onset colorectal cancer and health care providers reviewed Nest-CRC, and their reactions and recommendations were captured using a nested mixed methods approach.

METHODS

Using the learner verification approach, we conducted 2 sequential phases of surveys and interviews with English- and Spanish-speaking patients with early-onset colorectal cancer and health care providers. The surveys assessed participants' experiences with genetic services and provided immediate feedback on the Nest-CRC genetic education modules. Semistructured interviews evaluated participants' perceptions of self-efficacy, attraction, comprehension, cultural acceptability, and usability of Nest-CRC. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean, median, and proportions), while interview data were analyzed through line-by-line coding of the transcribed interviews. After each phase, Nest-CRC was refined based on participants' recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 52 participants, including 39 patients with early-onset colorectal cancer and 13 providers, participated in the study. Of these, 19 patients and 6 providers participated in phase 1 (N=25), and 20 patients and 7 providers participated in phase 2 (N=27). Most participants (phase 1: 23/25, 92%, to 25/25, 100%; phase 2: 24/27, 89%, to 27/27, 100%) agreed that each of the 5 education modules was easy to understand and helpful; 13 patients reported no history of GT, with 11 (85%) expressing interest in GT and 2 (15%) remaining unsure after completing Nest-CRC. Participants reported that Nest-CRC provided sufficient information to help them decide about GT. The tool was deemed acceptable by individuals from diverse backgrounds, and participants found it visually attractive, easy to comprehend, and user-friendly.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings revealed that Nest-CRC is a promising strategy for facilitating pretest education and promoting GT. Nest-CRC has been refined based on participant recommendations and will be re-evaluated.

Neighborhood Disadvantage and Genetic Testing Use Among a Nationally Representative Sample of US Adults

INTRODUCTION

Genetic testing helps individuals with disease management, family planning, and medical decision-making. Identifying individual-level factors related to the use of genetic services is essential but may only partially explain differential genetic service usage. To address this knowledge gap, we analyzed data on a national sample of US adults to evaluate whether higher neighborhood vulnerability is significantly associated with lower genetic testing utilization, controlling for sociodemographic and health characteristics.

METHODS

A 2024 nationally representative cross-sectional survey of 631 US adults recruited using NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel. Genetic testing uptake was measured as self-reported ever use of ancestry, personal trait, specific disease, or prenatal genetic carrier testing. Secondary outcomes were indicator variables for each genetic testing type. Neighborhood vulnerability (low versus high) was measured by the Social Vulnerability Index, capturing socioeconomic factors affecting community resilience to natural hazards and disasters.

RESULTS

Forty-eight percent of the weighted sample used genetic testing services. Compared to those in low vulnerability areas, individuals in high vulnerability areas had 42% lower odds (adjusted OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37-0.90) of using genetic testing services, controlling for individual-level characteristics. Secondary analyses showed no evidence of statistically significant relationships between neighborhood vulnerability and specific types of genetic testing services.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that neighborhood vulnerability may contribute to differences in genetic testing uptake, which is crucial to increasing early detection of cancer susceptibility and reducing US cancer incidence. This study demonstrates the importance of going beyond examining individual characteristics to investigating structural factors negatively impacting genetic testing usage.

Families' experiences accessing care after genomic sequencing in the pediatric cancer context: "It's just been a big juggle"

Access to genomic sequencing (GS) and resulting recommendations have not been well described in pediatric oncology. GS results may provide a cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS) diagnosis that warrants screening and specialist visits beyond cancer treatment, including testing or surveillance for family members. The Texas KidsCanSeq (KCS) Study evaluated implementation of GS in a diverse pediatric oncology population. We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 20) to explore experiences of KCS patients' families around learning about a CPS diagnosis and following up on recommended care. We used qualitative content analysis to develop themes and subthemes across families' descriptions of their experiences accessing care and to understand which factors presented barriers and/or facilitators. We found participants had difficulty differentiating which follow-up care recommendations were made for their child's current cancer treatment versus the CPS. In families' access to follow-up care for CPS, organizational factors were crucial: travel time and distance were common hardships, while coordination of care to streamline multiple appointments with different providers helped facilitate CPS care. Financial factors also impacted families' access to CPS-related follow-up care: having financial assistance and insurance were facilitators for families, while costs and lack of insurance posed as barriers for patients who lost coverage during transitions from pediatric to adult care, and for adult family members who had no coverage. Factors related to beliefs and perceptions, specifically perceiving the risk as less salient to them and feeling overwhelmed with the patient's cancer care, presented barriers to follow-up care primarily for family members. Regarding social factors, competing life priorities made it difficult for families to access follow-up care, though having community support alleviated these barriers. We suggest interventions to improve coordination of cancer treatment and CPS-related care and adherence to surveillance protocols for families as children age, such as care navigators and integrating longitudinal genetic counseling into hereditary cancer centers.

BRCA genetic testing and counseling in breast cancer: how do we meet our patients' needs?

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are tumor suppressor genes that have been linked to inherited susceptibility of breast cancer. Germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (gBRCAm) are clinically relevant for treatment selection in breast cancer because they confer sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. BRCA1/2 mutation status may also impact decisions on other systemic therapies, risk-reducing measures, and choice of surgery. Consequently, demand for gBRCAm testing has increased. Several barriers to genetic testing exist, including limited access to testing facilities, trained counselors, and psychosocial support, as well as the financial burden of testing. Here, we describe current implications of gBRCAm testing for patients with breast cancer, summarize current approaches to gBRCAm testing, provide potential solutions to support wider adoption of mainstreaming testing practices, and consider future directions of testing.

Utilization and Outcomes of Multigene Panel Testing in Patients With Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend germline genetic testing (GT) for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aims to evaluate the utilization and outcomes of multigene panel GT in patients with PDAC.

METHODS

This retrospective, multisite study included patients with PDAC diagnosed between May 2018 and August 2020 at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. Discussion, uptake, and outcomes of GT were compared before (May 1, 2018-May 1, 2019) and after (August 1, 2019-August 1, 2020) the guideline update, accounting for a transition period.

RESULTS

The study identified 533 patients with PDAC, with 321 (60.2%) preguideline and 212 (39.8%) postguideline. Patient characteristics did not differ between the preguideline and postguideline periods. GT was discussed in 34.3% (110 of 321) of preguideline and 39.6% (84 of 212) of postguideline patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.80]) and subsequently performed in 80.9% (89 of 110) of preguideline and 75.0% (63 of 84) of postguideline patients (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.61]). Of 152 tested patients, 26 (17.1%) had a pathogenic variant (PV), of whom 17 (11.2%; 17 of 152) were PDAC-associated. Over the entire study period, GT was more likely in younger patients (65 v 70 years; P < .001), those seen by a medical oncologist (82.9% v 69.0%; P < .001), and those surviving more than 12 months from diagnosis (70.4% v 43.4%; P < .001). Demographics and personal/family cancer history were comparable between patients with and without a PDAC PV.

CONCLUSION

GT remains underutilized despite National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. Given the poor prognosis of PDAC and potential implications of GT, efforts to increase utilization are needed to provide surveillance and support to both patients with PDAC and at-risk family members.

Intersectionality, BRCA Genetic Testing, and Intrafamilial Communication of Risk: A Qualitative Study

Significant health disparities exist in relation to pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2. This study aimed to better understand the barriers and facilitators to BRCA1/2 genetic testing and intrafamilial communication of risk in racially and ethnically diverse individuals. We conducted qualitative interviews with non-Hispanic White (n = 11) and Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) individuals (n = 14) who underwent testing for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants. We employed template analysis, case study analysis, and comparative case study analysis to examine healthcare experiences related to genetic testing as well as intrafamilial communication of risk. Applying an intersectional lens, we sought to inform more person-centered approaches to precision healthcare and help dismantle disparities in genomic healthcare. Template analysis revealed salient factors at the individual (psychosocial well-being), interpersonal/familial, and healthcare system levels. A two-part case study analysis provided insights into how race/ethnicity, cultural norms, and socioeconomic status interact with systemic and structural inequities to compound disparities. These findings underscore the need for person-centered, tailored, and culturally sensitive approaches to understanding and addressing the complexities surrounding testing and the communication of BRCA risk. Applying an intersectional lens can inform more person-centered approaches to precision healthcare and may help to surmount existing disparities.