Cancer genetics evaluation: barriers to and improvements for referral

Deficiencies in germline genetic testing in young-onset colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Young-onset colorectal cancer (YO-CRC) patients have high rates of pathologic genetic variants on germline testing, however it is unclear what factors are associated with genetic testing completion.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of YO-CRC patients aged ≤50 years between 2014 and 2021 who received the entirety of their cancer care at a single institution. The primary outcome was completion of germline multigene panel testing. Variables were examined for association with germline multigene panel testing.

RESULTS

Among 100 YO-CRC patients, only 31 ​% (n ​= ​31) completed genetic testing. Testing rates did not differ by colorectal cancer stage but were significantly higher among patients who received chemotherapy (39.8 ​% vs 5.9 ​%; p ​= ​0.01) and in patients with increasing number of relatives with a family history of cancer (p ​< ​0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Only one-third of YO-CRC patients completed genetic testing. Patients seen by oncology or with increasingly strong family cancer history were more likely to complete genetic testing.

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.

Mainstreaming Genetic Testing for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer by Oncology Providers: A Survey of Current Practice

PURPOSE

With limitations in early detection and poor treatment response, ovarian cancer is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Up to 25% of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is related to a hereditary predisposition. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend that all individuals diagnosed with EOC be offered germline genetic testing. Although this would ideally be performed by genetics professionals, a shortage of genetic counselors can affect timely access to these services. This study sought to investigate the current genetic testing practices of oncology providers to determine the feasibility of oncologist-led genetic testing for patients with EOC.

METHODS

A survey was distributed to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists with questions regarding timing, frequency, and type of cancer genetic testing, referrals to genetics professionals, confidence with aspects of genetic testing, and any barriers to these processes.

RESULTS

We received 170 evaluable responses. Eighty-five percent of providers always ordered genetic testing for patients with EOC. Most providers ordered germline multigene panel testing (95.8%), generally at diagnosis (64.5%). Provider confidence with the genetic testing process was generally high and significantly differed by providers' testing practices, namely, respondents who reported always ordering genetic testing tended to be more confident in ordering testing (P = .008), interpreting results (P = .005), and counseling a patient (P = .002). Patient disinterest and concerns for insurance coverage were commonly cited as barriers to testing and referrals.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this study suggest that oncologist-led genetic testing for patients with EOC, with referrals to genetics professionals when appropriate, has the potential to be a viable alternative service delivery model to increase access to genetic testing for patients diagnosed with EOC.

Electronic Family History Screening Tool for Detection of Inherited Cancer Risk: A Prospective Pilot Study

Family history screening to identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary cancers could be a powerful strategy to prevent cancer but is used inconsistently in primary care. The objective was to improve identification of women with at-risk family histories using a point-of-care family history screening tool administered on an electronic tablet device during well-woman appointments. A total of 288 women were invited to participate and 136 women (47.2%) completed the electronic family history screening tool. Significantly more women were identified and referred to the genetics department with the electronic family history screening tool than the standard-of-care paper questionnaire (11.8% versus 0.8%, P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of referred women who were evaluated by the genetic counselors, and no pathogenic variants were found with either family history screening method. Implementing innovative self-reporting tools may improve inherited cancer risk detection.

Design of a study to implement population-based risk assessment for hereditary cancer genetic testing in primary care

Identifying patients with high genetic risk for cancer has important clinical ramifications, but hereditary cancer risk is often not identified because of testing barriers at both the provider and patient level. It is unknown how to best implement appropriate genetic testing and follow-up care into an operating primary care clinic. Implementation studies to date have been conducted in high resourced facilities under optimal conditions, often not at the clinic level. This study aims to compare and evaluate two population-wide engagement strategies for identifying members of a primary care clinic's population with a family or personal history of cancer and offering high-risk individuals genetic testing for cancer susceptibility mutations. The two engagement strategies are: 1) point of care screening (POC), conducted when a patient is scheduled for an appointment and 2) direct patient engagement (DPE), where outreach provides the patient an opportunity to complete screening online on their own time. The study will identify changes, problems, and inefficiencies in clinical flow during and after the implementation of risk assessment and genomic testing for cancer risk across primary care clinics. It will also evaluate the effects of the two engagement strategies on patient, provider, and clinic leader outcomes, including perceptions of benefits, harms, and satisfaction with the engagement strategy and process of cancer risk assessment and genetic testing, across gender, racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and genetic literacy divides. Finally, the study will evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of each engagement strategy.

A patient-centered mobile health application to motivate use of genetic counseling among women with ovarian cancer: A pilot randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Despite current guidelines recommending women with ovarian cancer receive genetic risk evaluation by a genetic counselor, utilization has historically been low. We sought to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a week-long mobile Application for Genetic Information on Cancer (mAGIC) intervention aimed to persuade women with ovarian cancer to pursue genetic counseling.

METHODS

The mobile application intervention was based on the Fogg Behavior Model, and consisted of three parts: (1) identifying barriers, (2) developing motivators, and (3) providing triggers to action. The Health Belief Model was used to guide content development. We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled pilot trial among 104 untested women with a history of epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer with the primary objective of increasing uptake of cancer genetic counseling services.

RESULTS

Utilization of cancer genetic counseling services improved in both study arms over historical controls, however there was no statistically significant difference between them (intervention: 54.5% versus control: 38.6%; p = 0.14). However, compared to controls, women randomized to the mAGIC intervention demonstrated greater knowledge of hereditary cancer (0-10 scale; 9.4 ± 1.0 vs. 7.1 ± 1.5; p < 0.0001), which persisted for at least three months. Additionally, 96% of women in the intervention group reported they had talked with their family about genetic counseling compared to 77% in the control group (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The mAGIC intervention did not result in increased uptake of genetic counseling, however it provided significant secondary benefits, including increased participants' knowledge about hereditary ovarian cancer, self-efficacy, and their reported communication with family members. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02877862.

Adherence to referral guidelines

Purpose

A significant subset of patients (12 per cent) with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is BRCA mutation carriers, which can be identified through genetic testing. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the referral practice for TNBC patients with reference to New South Wales (NSW) referral guidelines at the time of diagnosis and to assess the effectiveness of such guidelines in identifying BRCA mutations. Robust health governance requires monitoring of adherence to evidence-based guidelines such as those that underpin referral for cancer genetic testing in this clinical scenario.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors conducted a retrospective clinical audit of identified TNBC patients at St Vincent’s Hospital (SVH) between 2006 and 2016 in NSW, comparing referral practice to guidelines extant at the time of diagnosis. Family history was considered for age guideline-inappropriate referrals to SVH while the results of BRCA gene testing were assessed for all referred.

Findings

Overall, of the 17 patients eligible for referral based on the age criterion, 10 (58.5 per cent) were referred appropriately; however, there were substantial improvements from 2012 with 100 per cent referred. Of note, 12 (33.4 per cent) of 36 patients referred to SVH were referred outside of guidelines, pointing to other reasons for referral, such as patient age (OR 0.945; 95% CI 0.914–0.978) and calendar year (OR: 1.332; 95% CI: 1.127–1.575) at TNBC diagnosis. Referral guidelines captured 66.67 per cent of identified deleterious BRCA mutations in those tested.

Originality/value

Substantial under-referral of guideline-eligible patients was identified, with evidence-based guidelines effective in identifying high-risk individuals for BRCA mutation testing. There was, however, a substantial proportion of guideline-inappropriate referrals.

Evaluating and improving the implementation of a community-based hereditary cancer screening program

Healthcare disparities exist in the provision of cancer genetic services including genetic counseling and testing related to BRCA1/2 mutations. To address this in a community health setting a screening tool was created to identify high-risk women. This study evaluates the implementation of the tool and identifies opportunities for improved cancer genetic screening, including regular clinician education. A mixed-method approach was used to evaluate clinician utilization of the screening tool at Planned Parenthood affiliates. Novel surveys that evaluated acceptance and implementation were administered to clinicians (n = 14) and semi-structured interviews (n = 6) were used to explore clinicians' perspectives and identify gaps in its utilization. Educational modules that addressed gaps were developed, implemented, and evaluated using a post-education survey (n = 8). Clinicians reported confidence in administering and interpreting the screening tool, but reported less confidence in their knowledge of cancer genetics and ability to connect clients with genetic counseling and testing (p = .003). Educational modules resulted in significant gains in clinician knowledge on genetic topics (p < .05) and increased self-reported confidence in connecting clients with genetic services. The modules reinforced the belief that genetic testing is beneficial for patients at increased risk (p = .001) and is important to inform subsequent medical management (p = .027). While building community clinicians' capacity to connect clients with genetic services is crucial, it is challenged by knowledge and confidence gaps in discussions of genetic services with clients. Consistent genetic-focused education with non-genetic clinicians can improve confidence and knowledge, enabling a more effective screening program in community health settings.

What do people think about genetics? A systematic review

Genetics is increasingly becoming a part of modern medical practice. How people think about genetics' use in medicine and their daily lives is therefore essential. Earlier studies indicated mixed attitudes about genetics. However, this might be changing. Using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) as a guideline, we initially reviewed 442 articles that looked at awareness, attitudes, knowledge, and perception of risks among the general and targeted recruitment populations. After fitting our criteria (from the last 5 years, conducted in the USA, non-provider populations, quantitative results reported, and assessed participants 18 years and older), finally 51 eligible articles were thematically coded and presented in this paper. Awareness is reported as relatively high in the studies reviewed. Attitudes are mixed but with higher proportions reporting positive attitudes towards genetic testing and counseling. Self-reported knowledge is reasonably high, specifically with the effects of specific programs developed to raise knowledge levels of the general and targeted recruited populations. Perception of risk is somewhat aligned with actual risk. With the reasonable positive reports of genetic awareness and knowledge, there is similar positive attitude and perception of risk, supporting the need for continued dissemination of such knowledge. Given interest in incorporating community participation in genomic educational strategies, we provide this review as a baseline from which to launch community-specific educational supports and tools.

Referral to cancer genetic counseling: do migrant status and patients' educational background matter?

Participation rates in cancer genetic counseling differ among populations, as patients with a lower educational background and migrant patients seem to have poorer access to it. We conducted a study to determine the present-day educational level and migrant status of counselees referred to cancer genetic counseling. We assessed personal characteristics and demographics of 731 newly referred counselees. Descriptive statistics were used to describe these characteristics. The results show that about 40% of the counselees had a high educational level and 89% were Dutch natives. Compared to the Dutch population, we found a significant difference in educational level (p = < 0.01) and migrant status (p = < 0.001). This suggests disparities in cancer genetic counseling and as a result of that, suboptimal care for vulnerable groups. Limited health literacy is likely to pose a particular challenge to cancer genetic counseling for counselees with a lower education or a migrant background. Our study points to considerable scope for improvement in referring vulnerable groups of patients for cancer genetic counseling.

Evidence for models of diagnostic service provision in the community: literature mapping exercise and focused rapid reviews

Background

Current NHS policy favours the expansion of diagnostic testing services in community and primary care settings.

Objectives

Our objectives were to identify current models of community diagnostic services in the UK and internationally and to assess the evidence for quality, safety and clinical effectiveness of such services. We were also interested in whether or not there is any evidence to support a broader range of diagnostic tests being provided in the community.

Review methods

We performed an initial broad literature mapping exercise to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence. The results were used to inform selection of three areas for investigation in more detail. We chose to perform focused reviews on logistics of diagnostic modalities in primary care (because the relevant issues differ widely between different types of test); diagnostic ultrasound (a key diagnostic technology affected by developments in equipment); and a diagnostic pathway (assessment of breathlessness) typically delivered wholly or partly in primary care/community settings. Databases and other sources searched, and search dates, were decided individually for each review. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion.

Results

We identified seven main models of service that are delivered in primary care/community settings and in most cases with the possible involvement of community/primary care staff. Not all of these models are relevant to all types of diagnostic test. Overall, the evidence base for community- and primary care-based diagnostic services was limited, with very few controlled studies comparing different models of service. We found evidence from different settings that these services can reduce referrals to secondary care and allow more patients to be managed in primary care, but the quality of the research was generally poor. Evidence on the quality (including diagnostic accuracy and appropriateness of test ordering) and safety of such services was mixed.

Conclusions

In the absence of clear evidence of superior clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the expansion of community-based services appears to be driven by other factors. These include policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals; the promise of reduced waiting times for diagnosis; the availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment; and the ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts. However, service development also faces a number of barriers, including issues related to staffing, training, governance and quality control.

Limitations

We have not attempted to cover all types of diagnostic technology in equal depth. Time and staff resources constrained our ability to carry out review processes in duplicate. Research in this field is limited by the difficulty of obtaining, from publicly available sources, up-to-date information about what models of service are commissioned, where and from which providers.

Future work

There is a need for research to compare the outcomes of different service models using robust study designs. Comparisons of ‘true’ community-based services with secondary care-based open-access services and rapid access clinics would be particularly valuable. There are specific needs for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider health system. There appears to be no easy way of identifying what services are being commissioned from whom and keeping up with local evaluations of new services, suggesting a need to improve the availability of information in this area.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone Delivery of BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling Compared With In-Person Counseling: 1-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

The ongoing integration of cancer genomic testing into routine clinical care has led to increased demand for cancer genetic services. To meet this demand, there is an urgent need to enhance the accessibility and reach of such services, while ensuring comparable care delivery outcomes. This randomized trial compared 1-year outcomes for telephone genetic counseling with in-person counseling among women at risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer living in geographically diverse areas.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using population-based sampling, women at increased risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to in-person (n = 495) or telephone genetic counseling (n = 493). One-sided 97.5% CIs were used to estimate the noninferiority effects of telephone counseling on 1-year psychosocial, decision-making, and quality-of-life outcomes. Differences in test-uptake proportions for determining equivalency of a 10% prespecified margin were evaluated by 95% CIs.

RESULTS

At the 1-year follow-up, telephone counseling was noninferior to in-person counseling for all psychosocial and informed decision-making outcomes: anxiety (difference [d], 0.08; upper bound 97.5% CI, 0.45), cancer-specific distress (d, 0.66; upper bound 97.5% CI, 2.28), perceived personal control (d, -0.01; lower bound 97.5% CI, -0.06), and decisional conflict (d, -0.12; upper bound 97.5% CI, 2.03). Test uptake was lower for telephone counseling (27.9%) than in-person counseling (37.3%), with the difference of 9.4% (95% CI, 2.2% to 16.8%). Uptake was appreciably higher for rural compared with urban dwellers in both counseling arms.

CONCLUSION

Although telephone counseling led to lower testing uptake, our findings suggest that telephone counseling can be effectively used to increase reach and access without long-term adverse psychosocial consequences. Further work is needed to determine long-term adherence to risk management guidelines and effective strategies to boost utilization of primary and secondary preventive strategies.

Expanding access to BRCA1/2 genetic counseling with telephone delivery: a cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The growing demand for cancer genetic services underscores the need to consider approaches that enhance access and efficiency of genetic counseling. Telephone delivery of cancer genetic services may improve access to these services for individuals experiencing geographic (rural areas) and structural (travel time, transportation, childcare) barriers to access.

METHODS

This cluster-randomized clinical trial used population-based sampling of women at risk for BRCA1/2 mutations to compare telephone and in-person counseling for: 1) equivalency of testing uptake and 2) noninferiority of changes in psychosocial measures. Women 25 to 74 years of age with personal or family histories of breast or ovarian cancer and who were able to travel to one of 14 outreach clinics were invited to participate. Randomization was by family. Assessments were conducted at baseline one week after pretest and post-test counseling and at six months. Of the 988 women randomly assigned, 901 completed a follow-up assessment. Cluster bootstrap methods were used to estimate the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between test uptake proportions, using a 10% equivalency margin. Differences in psychosocial outcomes for determining noninferiority were estimated using linear models together with one-sided 97.5% bootstrap CIs.

RESULTS

Uptake of BRCA1/2 testing was lower following telephone (21.8%) than in-person counseling (31.8%, difference = 10.2%, 95% CI = 3.9% to 16.3%; after imputation of missing data: difference = 9.2%, 95% CI = -0.1% to 24.6%). Telephone counseling fulfilled the criteria for noninferiority to in-person counseling for all measures.

CONCLUSIONS

BRCA1/2 telephone counseling, although leading to lower testing uptake, appears to be safe and as effective as in-person counseling with regard to minimizing adverse psychological reactions, promoting informed decision making, and delivering patient-centered communication for both rural and urban women.

Primary-care providers' perceived barriers to integration of genetics services: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

We aimed to systematically review the literature to identify primary-care providers' perceived barriers against provision of genetics services.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and ERIC using key and Boolean term combinations for articles published from 2001 to 2012 that met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Specific barriers were identified and aggregated into categories based on topic similarity. These categories were then grouped into themes.

RESULTS

Of the 4,174 citations identified by the search, 38 publications met inclusion criteria. There were 311 unique barriers that were classified into 38 categories across 4 themes: knowledge and skills; ethical, legal, and social implications; health-care systems; and scientific evidence. Barriers most frequently mentioned by primary-care providers included a lack of knowledge about genetics and genetic risk assessment, concern for patient anxiety, a lack of access to genetics, and a lack of time.

CONCLUSION

Although studies reported that primary-care providers perceive genetics as being important, barriers to the integration of genetics medicine into routine patient care were identified. The promotion of practical guidelines, point-of-care risk assessment tools, tailored educational tools, and other systems-level strategies will assist primary-care providers in providing genetics services for their patients.

Improving referral for genetic risk assessment in ovarian cancer using an electronic medical record system

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate an electronic referral form to increase referral for genetic risk assessment of women with newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer.

METHODS

A form summarizing referral for genetic counseling for women with ovarian cancer was introduced into the electronic medical record allowing gynecologic oncologists to electronically submit a request for genetic services. Analysis compared patient and provider characteristics for women newly diagnosed with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer referred 1 year before and after introducing the form. All patients were seen in a single fee-for-service university-based cancer center clinic.

RESULTS

There were 86 newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients seen before and 83 seen after the introduction of the electronic referral form. Most lived in the metropolitan area and had stage III to IV disease, serous histology, a documented family history, and a treating oncologist who was less than 10 years from completion of fellowship. Postintervention referral rates increased from 17% to 30% (P = 0.053). Factors best predicting referral were whether the patient was seen after the intervention (P = 0.009), resided in the metropolitan area (P = 0.006), and had been identified as at high hereditary risk (P < 0.0001). Sixty percent of the referred patients participated in counseling. There were no differences in baseline characteristics of the referred patients before and after the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Referral rates increased with the introduction of an electronic medical record referral form suggesting that streamlining the physician referral process might be effective at increasing referrals for cancer genetic risk assessment.

Cancer genetics and genomics: essentials for oncology nurses

Cancer genetics and genomics are rapidly evolving, with new discoveries emerging in genetic mutations, variants, genomic sequencing, risk-reduction methods, and targeted therapies. To educate patients and families, state-of-the-art care requires nurses to understand terminology, scientific and technological advances, and pharmacogenomics. Clinical application of cancer genetics and genomics involves working in interdisciplinary teams to properly identify patient risk through assessing family history, facilitating genetic testing and counseling services, applying risk-reduction methods, and administering and monitoring targeted therapies.

"Would you test your children without their consent?" and other sticky dilemmas in the field of cancer genetic testing

Cancer genetic testing is surrounded by myriad ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications which are being revisited as testing expands into an everyday practice and into more complicated areas like whole exome and direct-to-consumer testing. We chose to survey cancer genetic counselors and physicians from a wide range of non-genetics specialties to determine what they would do if faced with the complex decisions associated with cancer genetic testing, how their views compare, and how they align with current guidelines and data. Genetic counselors were significantly more likely than non-genetics physicians to bill their insurance for testing (94.9 vs. 86.8 %; p = 0.001) and purchase life insurance before testing (86.6 vs. 68.6 %; p = 0.000) and were less likely to use an alias (3.2 vs. 13.2 %; p = 0.000) or order testing on their own DNA (15.3 vs. 24.2 %; p = 0.004). They were also less likely to test their minor children (0.9 vs. 33.1 %; p = 0.000) or test their children without their knowledge and consent/assent (1.4 vs.11.5 %; p = 0.000). The results of our study indicate that there is wide variation regarding what clinicians predict they would do in the areas of ethical, legal and psychosocial issues in cancer genetic testing. Cancer genetic counselors' choices are more aligned with professional guidelines, likely due to their experience in the field and awareness of current guidelines. These data are a starting point for a broader discussion of who should offer cancer genetic counseling and testing to patients, particularly as the complexity of the available testing options and associated issues increase with whole exome sequencing.

Patient-reported hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in a primary care practice

Identifying women appropriate for cancer genetic counseling referral depends on patient-reported family history. Understanding predictors of reporting a high-risk family is critical in ensuring compliance with current referral guidelines. Our objectives were to (1) assess prevalence of candidates for BRCA1 and BRCA2 counseling referral in a primary care setting, (2) explore associations with high-risk status and various patient (e.g., race) and family structure (e.g., number of relatives) characteristics, and (3) determine whether high-risk patients had genetic counseling and/or testing. Survey and pedigree data were collected between 2010 and 2012 for 486 Women's Health Clinic patients. Analyses in 2013 investigated perceived cancer risk and worry, family structure, and receipt of genetic counseling. We explored whether these were associated with meeting USPSTF guidelines for genetic counseling referral. Twenty-two (4.5 %) women met the criteria for BRCA referral. Only one of these women had previous genetic counseling, and one reported prior genetic testing. Older women were more likely to meet BRCA referral criteria (P < 0.001). Although perceived risk was higher among high-risk women, 27 % of high-risk women felt their breast cancer risk was "low", and 32 % felt their risk was lower than average. About one in 22 women in primary care may require genetics services for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, but alarmingly, few actually receive these services. Also, a significant proportion do not perceive that they are at increased risk. Educational interventions may be needed for both providers and patients to increase awareness of familial risk and appropriate genetic counseling services.

Barriers and motivators for referral of patients with suspected lynch syndrome to cancer genetic services: a qualitative study

This article explores the views of general practitioners and specialists on their referral of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome to cancer genetic services. Using a purposive maximum variation sampling strategy, we conducted semi-structured interviews face-to-face with 28 general practitioners and specialists in public or private hospitals and specialist clinics between March and August 2011. General practitioners and specialists were recruited in a major metropolitan area in Australia. Interview transcripts were reviewed by two independent researchers, and thematic analysis was performed using NVivo10 software. The main barriers and motivators identified were: (1) clinician-related (e.g., familiarity with Lynch syndrome and family history knowledge); (2) patient-related (e.g., patients’ interests and personal experience with cancer); and (3) organizational-related (e.g., access to services, guidelines and referral pathway). Referral of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome to cancer genetic services is motivated and hindered by a range of individual, interpersonal and organizational factors. In order to improve the care and quality of life of patients and family with suspected Lynch syndrome, further research is needed to develop supportive tools for clinicians.

Adverse events in cancer genetic testing: medical, ethical, legal, and financial implications

Cancer genetic counseling and testing are now integral services in progressive cancer care. There has been much debate over whether these services should be delivered by providers with specialized training in genetics or by all clinicians. Adverse outcomes resulting from cancer genetic counseling and testing performed by clinicians without specialization in genetics have been reported, but formal documentation is sparse. In this review, we present a series of national cases illustrating major patterns of errors in cancer genetic counseling and testing and the resulting impact on medical liability, health care costs, and the patients and their families.

Improving identification of lynch syndrome patients: a comparison of research data with clinical records

Current evidence suggests poor identification and referral of Lynch syndrome patients. This study evaluated the strategies by which patients with endometrial cancer were referred to genetics services. Data from clinic-based patients with endometrial cancer enrolled through the Australian National Endometrial Cancer population-based research study with detailed family history information were analyzed. The Amsterdam II criteria, the revised Bethesda guidelines, and criteria adapted for this study was assessed using personal/family history information. The percentages of patients referred and who could have been referred to genetics services, and the performance of each criterion for identifying possible mismatch-repair (MMR) gene mutation carriers, based on tumor MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), were determined. Research data indicated that 236/397(59%) of patients with endometrial cancer had family/personal history of cancer, including 14 (4%) who fulfilled Amsterdam II criteria. Family history information was noted in the hospital records for only 61(15%) patients, including 7/14 (50%) of patients meeting Amsterdam criteria, and always less extensively than that recorded in the research setting. Only 13 patients (two meeting Amsterdam criteria) were referred for genetic assessment. Of 58 patients with tumor MMR protein-IHC loss, the Amsterdam criteria and Bethesda guidelines identified only three and 34% of these possible germline mutation carriers, respectively. Greater sensitivity (60%) was obtained using a single criterion proposed by our study, ≥2 first-degree or second-degree relatives reporting Lynch cancers. Hospital records indicate poor recognition of family history. Application of research methods show improved identification and may facilitate appropriate referrals of endometrial cancer patients with possible Lynch syndrome.

Receipt of genetic counseling recommendations among black women at high risk for BRCA mutations

Low use of BRCA counseling and testing services among black women has been reported in several studies, even though such services may play an important role in reducing racial disparities in breast cancer. Surprisingly, little is known about the extent to which black women at high risk for BRCA mutations actually receive recommendations for BRCA counseling. Thus, a primary goal of the current study was to identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with the receipt of physician recommendation for genetic counseling based on the self-report of black women at high risk for BRCA mutations. In this cross-sectional study, participants were 125 black women with a family history suggestive of a hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer syndrome. Participants were asked about their receipt of genetic counseling recommendation or referral. Physician recommendation was reported by over two-thirds of the sample. Multivariate analyses revealed that older age and study recruitment source, specifically community-based recruitment, were significantly and independently associated with lower likelihood of physician recommendation. Findings highlight the need for additional research to identify subgroups of high-risk black women among whom physician recommendation of genetic counseling is low but would benefit from such counseling.

Why is genetic screening for autosomal dominant disorders underused in families? The case of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia

PURPOSE

Appropriate management of autosomal dominant disorders reduces morbidity and mortality but relies on identifying which family members are affected. Genetic testing may identify relatives needing follow-up but is underused. We conducted this study to identify barriers to genetic testing for one disorder, hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.

METHODS

Surveys and online discussion groups with people from hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia families.

RESULTS

Multiple barriers to hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia genetic testing were identified including lack of knowledge about genetic testing, problems with access, and emotional barriers. Many participants did not understand the rationale for hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia testing or benefits of early detection; believed that genetic testing is expensive and not covered by insurance; and believed that primary care providers do not know how to order genetic testing. Access to hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia testing is limited by distance from a hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia center or a genetics clinic. Emotional barriers include fear of insurance discrimination; denial of having hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia or being at risk; and guilt and stigma.

CONCLUSION

Voluntary disease organizations should develop and disseminate brief educational materials that describe the rationale for genetic testing and emphasize the benefits of early detection and treatment. In addition, laboratories offering genetic testing should provide support for primary care physicians to order and interpret genetic tests.

A primary care specialist genetics service: a cluster-randomised factorial trial

BACKGROUND

GPs do not have the confidence to identify patients at increased genetic risk. A specialist primary care clinical genetics service could support GPs with referral and provide local clinics for their patients.

AIM

To test whether primary care genetic-led genetics education improves both non-cancer and cancer referral rates, and primary care-led genetics clinics improve the patient pathway.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cluster-randomised factorial trial in 73 general practices in the south of England.

METHOD

Practices randomised to receive case scenario based seminar (intervention) or not (control), and referred patients a primary (intervention) or secondary (control) care genetic counsellor (GC)-led appointment.

OUTCOME MEASURES

GP referral and clinic attendance rates (primary), appropriate cancer and case scenario referral rates, patient satisfaction, clinic costs, and case management (secondary).

RESULTS

Eighty-nine and 68 referrals made by 36 intervention and 37 control practices respectively. There was a trend towards an overall higher referral rate among educated GPs (referral rate ratio [RRR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89 to 2.02; P = 0.161), and they made more appropriate cancer referrals (RRR 2.36, 95% CI = 1.07 to 5.24; P = 0.035). No indication of difference in clinic attendance rates (odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI = 0.43 to 1.95; P = 0.802) or patient satisfaction (P = 0.189). Patients spent 49% less travelling (£3.60 versus £6.62; P<0.001) and took 33% less time (39.7 versus 57.7 minutes; P<0.001) to attend a primary than secondary care appointment; 83% of GC-managed appointments met the 18-week referral to treatment, NHS target.

CONCLUSION

An integrated primary care genetics service both supports GPs in appropriate cancer referral and provides care in the right place by the right person.

Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: State of the Art and Future Directions in the Era of Personalized Medicine

Scientific and technologic advances are revolutionizing our approach to genetic cancer risk assessment, cancer screening and prevention, and targeted therapy, fulfilling the promise of personalized medicine. In this monograph, we review the evolution of scientific discovery in cancer genetics and genomics, and describe current approaches, benefits, and barriers to the translation of this information to the practice of preventive medicine. Summaries of known hereditary cancer syndromes and highly penetrant genes are provided and contrasted with recently discovered genomic variants associated with modest increases in cancer risk. We describe the scope of knowledge, tools, and expertise required for the translation of complex genetic and genomic test information into clinical practice. The challenges of genomic counseling include the need for genetics and genomics professional education and multidisciplinary team training, the need for evidence-based information regarding the clinical utility of testing for genomic variants, the potential dangers posed by premature marketing of first-generation genomic profiles, and the need for new clinical models to improve access to and responsible communication of complex disease risk information. We conclude that given the experiences and lessons learned in the genetics era, the multidisciplinary model of genetic cancer risk assessment and management will serve as a solid foundation to support the integration of personalized genomic information into the practice of cancer medicine.

Access to genetic testing and genetic counseling in vulnerable populations: the d/Deaf and hard of hearing population

Genetic testing holds great potential for preventing morbidities and mortalities for a number of diseases through early detection and effective intervention. As the number of genetic tests expand, so will public demand for these services. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate access to genetic testing and genetic services to ensure that all Canadians, including vulnerable groups, have equitable access to all forms of health care, in keeping with the mandate of the Canadian Health Act. The purpose of this paper is to examine the literature to determine if and how the Deaf community, as a vulnerable group, is at an increased risk of inequitable access to genetic services in Canada and to discuss how those who are deaf and hard of hearing are subject to the same risks. First, we define vulnerability and describe why the Deaf community, as a social group, can be considered a vulnerable group, followed by a description of the benefits of genetic testing. Second, we describe the barriers to accessing genetic testing, and how the d/Deaf and hard of hearing population experience additional barriers. Third, we examine the difficulties incorporating genetic testing into medical practice, and how this creates additional barriers to those already at risk. Finally, we discuss the steps necessary to promote equitable access to genetic testing among the d/Deaf and hard of hearing populations within Canada, and provide recommendations for further research in this topic area. Lastly, we comment on how barriers to genetic testing vary among the d/Deaf and hard of hearing is dependent upon the type of health care system available (whether public or private).

Barriers to and motivations for physician referral of patients to cancer genetics clinics

Although it is well known that under-referral of colon cancer patients to cancer genetics clinics is a chronic problem, no study has yet examined why physicians may be ordering testing independently rather than referring patients to cancer genetics clinics. The current study explored variables which may impact a physician's preference for ordering testing independently or referring patients to outside cancer genetics experts. An online questionnaire, distributed to the membership of the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, yielded responses from 298 physicians. Motivations to refer to cancer genetics clinics rather than order testing independently included fear of genetic discrimination and a belief that patients benefit from genetic counseling about the risks, benefits and consequences of testing. These results suggest that in order to increase referrals, genetic counselors must educate physicians about the unique benefits patients receive from participating in genetic counseling.

Breast and ovarian cancer: the forgotten paternal contribution

Five to 10% of all cases of breast and ovarian cancer are attributed to a heritable genetic predisposition. Transmission of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is equally likely through maternal or paternal lineage; however, fewer referrals to cancer genetics clinics appear to be made for a paternal, than maternal, family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. To examine this potential bias, a retrospective review of 315 patient and family charts was conducted by one familial cancer clinic in Toronto, Canada. Referral letters, risk estimates, and family histories were analyzed to identify significant differences between patients referred with maternal and paternal family histories. It was determined that patients are approximately five times more likely to be referred with a maternal family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer as compared to those with a paternal family history (p = <.0001). Individuals with a paternal family history were found to have a different, and higher, pattern of risk estimates (p = .00064). No significant difference was seen between the type of referrals sent by general practitioners, oncologists, and gynecologists. Recommendations to increase the awareness of paternal family history in assessing cancer risk are provided.

Personalized medicine and genomics: challenges and opportunities in assessing effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and future research priorities

Personalized medicine is health care that tailors interventions to individual variation in risk and treatment response. Although medicine has long strived to achieve this goal, advances in genomics promise to facilitate this process. Relevant to present-day practice is the use of genomic information to classify individuals according to disease susceptibility or expected responsiveness to a pharmacologic treatment and to provide targeted interventions. A symposium at the annual meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making on 23 October 2007 highlighted the challenges and opportunities posed in translating advances in molecular medicine into clinical practice. A panel of US experts in medical practice, regulatory policy, technology assessment, and the financing and organization of medical innovation was asked to discuss the current state of practice and research on personalized medicine as it relates to their own field. This article reports on the issues raised, discusses potential approaches to meet these challenges, and proposes directions for future work. The case of genetic testing to inform dosing with warfarin, an anticoagulant, is used to illustrate differing perspectives on evidence and decision making for personalized medicine.

Cancer genetic risk assessment and referral patterns in primary care

PURPOSE

This study was undertaken to describe cancer risk assessment practices among primary care providers (PCPs).

METHODS

An electronic survey was sent to PCPs affiliated with a single insurance carrier. Demographic and practice characteristics associated with cancer genetic risk assessment and testing activities were described. Latent class analysis supported by likelihood ratio tests was used to define PCP profiles with respect to the level of engagement in genetic risk assessment and referral activity based on demographic and practice characteristics.

RESULTS

860 physicians responded to the survey (39% family practice, 29% internal medicine, 22% obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN), 10% other). Most respondents (83%) reported that they routinely assess hereditary cancer risk; however, only 33% reported that they take a full, three-generation pedigree for risk assessment. OB/GYN specialty, female gender, and physician access to a genetic counselor were independent predictors of referral to cancer genetics specialists. Three profiles of PCPs, based upon referral practice and extent of involvement in genetics evaluation, were defined.

CONCLUSION

Profiles of physician characteristics associated with varying levels of engagement with cancer genetic risk assessment and testing can be identified. These profiles may ultimately be useful in targeting decision support tools and services.

Healthcare's ascension to patient-centered genomic care

The future of healthcare in the 21st century will be patient-centered genomic care. These two previously disparate fields now stand to help revolutionize the way in which we provide healthcare. Preventative medicine guided by genomic information and patient preference will enable further reductions in common chronic diseases, especially with the significant aging population. This care will increasingly involve corporate genomics companies and services to accomplish evidence-based medicine and patient-centered delivery. The goal of this advanced care should be 'the care we need and no less, the care we want and no more'. Armed with genomic knowledge and healthcare coaching, patients of the 21st century will be prepared to reduce disease burden and improve healthcare satisfaction through active partnerships with healthcare practitioners and complementary technology. Anything less cannot truly be patient-centered genomic medicine.