Health Care Segregation, Physician Recommendation, and Racial Disparities in BRCA1/2 Testing Among Women With Breast Cancer

Increasing Clinical Trial Participation of Black Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer

Despite racial disparities in breast cancer mortality, Black women remain underrepresented in clinical trials. In this mixed methods research, 48 Black women were engaged via focus group discussions and in-depth interviews to better understand the lived experience of women with breast cancer. The results of this qualitative study informed the development of a subsequent online survey to identify barriers, motivators, and other factors that influence decision-making by Black women diagnosed with breast cancer when considering clinical trial participation. Among the 257 Black survey participants, most (95%) were aware of clinical trials; of those, most viewed them as lifesaving (81%) and/or benefiting others (90%). Negative perceptions such as serious side effects (58%), not receiving real treatment (52%), or risk of potential harm (62%) were indicated. Barriers included financial expenses (49%), concerns that their condition could be made worse (29%), that they would receive a placebo (28%), or that treatment was unapproved (28%). Participants were more likely than their health care providers (HCPs) to initiate discussions of clinical trials (53% versus 33%), and 29% of participants indicated a need for more information about risks and benefits, even after having those conversations. The most trustworthy sources of information on clinical trials were HCPs (66%) and breast cancer support groups (64%). These results suggest that trusted communities are key for providing education on clinical trials. However, there is also a need for HCPs to proactively discuss clinical trials with patients to ensure that they are adequately informed about all aspects of participation.

Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer Genetic Testing May be Mitigated by Counseling

BACKGROUND

Currently, racial disparities exist in access to genetic testing. Recent developments have helped narrow the gap in accessibility. The purpose of this study was to determine whether racial disparities in genetic consultation attendance and completion of genetic testing persist, and, if so, factors that contribute to under-utilization of these resources.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review of breast patients referred for genetic counseling between 2017 and 2019 was performed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression evaluated factors associated with genetic counseling attendance and genetic testing.

RESULTS

A total of 596 patients were referred for genetic counseling: 433 (72.7%) white; 138 (23.2%) black; and 25 (4.2%) other or unknown. In multivariate analysis, black patients, patients without breast cancer family history, and patients without a current cancer diagnosis, classified as high risk, were significantly less likely to attend their genetics appointment (p = 0.010, p = 0.007, p = 0.005, respectively). Age, insurance type, distance from facility, and need for chemotherapy did not significantly impact consult completion rate. Of the patients who completed a genetic consult, 84.4% (n = 248) had genetic testing and 17.7% (n = 44) had a pathogenic variant. For patients who attended counseling, there were no significant factors that were predictive with receipt of genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, there was a significant association between race and attending genetic counseling. Once counseled, most patients went on to receive genetic testing, and racial disparities in testing disappeared, emphasizing the value of providing additional education about the importance and purpose of genetic testing.

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.

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.

Gynecologic Care of Black Breast Cancer Survivors

Purpose of Review

Black patients suffer from breast cancer-related racial health disparities, which could have implications on their gynecologic care. This review explores considerations in the gynecologic care of Black breast cancer survivors.

Recent Findings

Black people have a higher risk of leiomyoma and endometrial cancer, which could confound bleeding patterns such as in the setting of tamoxifen use. As Black people are more likely to have early-onset breast cancer, this may have implications on long-term bone and heart health. Black patients may be more likely to have menopausal symptoms at baseline and as a result of breast cancer treatment. Furthermore, Black patients are less likely to utilize assisted reproductive technology and genetic testing services.

Summary

It is important for healthcare providers to be well-versed in the intersections of breast cancer and gynecologic care. Black breast cancer survivors may have unique considerations for which practitioners should be knowledgeable.

A Public Health Emergency: Breast Cancer Among Black Communities in the United States

While Black people have a similar incidence of breast cancer compared to White people, they have a 40% increased death rate. Black people are more likely to be diagnosed with aggressive subtypes such as triple-negative breast cancer. However, despite biological factors, systemic racism and social determinants of health create delays in care and barriers to treatment. While genetic testing holds incredible promise for Black people, uptake remains low and results may be challenging to interpret. There is a need for more robust, multidisciplinary, and antiracist interventions to reverse breast cancer-related racial disparities.

Disparities in genetic testing for breast cancer among black and Hispanic women in the United States

Women from racial and ethnic minorities are at a higher risk for developing breast cancer. Despite significant advancements in breast cancer screening, treatment, and overall survival rates, disparities persist among Black and Hispanic women. These disparities manifest as breast cancer at an earlier age with worse prognosis, lower rates of genetic screening, higher rates of advanced-stage diagnosis, and higher rates of breast cancer mortality compared to Caucasian women. The underutilization of available resources, such as genetic testing, counseling, and risk assessment tools, by Black and Hispanic women is one of many reasons contributing to these disparities. This review aims to explore the racial disparities that exist in genetic testing among Black and Hispanic women. Barriers that contribute to racial disparities include limited access to resources, insufficient knowledge and awareness, inconsistent care management, and slow progression of incorporation of genetic data and information from women of racial/ethnic minorities into risk assessment models and genetic databases. These barriers continue to impede rates of genetic testing and counseling among Black and Hispanic mothers. Consequently, it is imperative to address these barriers to promote early risk assessment, genetic testing and counseling, early detection rates, and ultimately, lower mortality rates among women belonging to racial and ethnic minorities.

Randomized trial promoting cancer genetic risk assessment when genetic counseling cost removed: 1-year follow-up

PURPOSE

Cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) is recommended for women with ovarian and high-risk breast cancer. However, the underutilization of CGRA has long been documented, and cost has been a major barrier. In this randomized controlled trial, a tailored counseling and navigation (TCN) intervention significantly improved CGRA uptake at 6-month follow-up, compared with targeted print (TP) and usual care (UC). We aimed to examine the effect of removing genetic counseling costs on CGRA uptake by 12 months.

METHODS

We recruited racially and geographically diverse women with breast and ovarian cancer from cancer registries in Colorado, New Jersey, and New Mexico. Participants assigned to TCN received telephone-based psychoeducation and navigation. After 6 months, the trial provided free genetic counseling to participants in all arms.

RESULTS

At 12 months, more women in TCN obtained CGRA (26.6%) than those in TP (11.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 2.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.56 to 4.89) and UC (12.2%; OR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.41 to 4.29). There were no significant differences in CGRA uptake between TP and UC. The Kaplan-Meier curve shows that the divergence of cumulative incidence slopes (TCN vs UC, TCN vs TP) appears primarily within the initial 6 months.

CONCLUSION

TCN significantly increased CGRA uptake at the 12-month follow-up. Directly removing the costs of genetic counseling attenuated the effects of TCN, highlighting the critical enabling role played by cost coverage. Future policies and interventions should address multilevel cost-related barriers to expand patients' access to CGRA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered with the NIH clinical trial registry, clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03326713. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03326713.

Disparities in Breast Cancer Care-How Factors Related to Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Drive Inequity

Breast cancer survival has increased significantly over the last few decades due to more effective strategies for prevention and risk modification, advancements in imaging detection, screening, and multimodal treatment algorithms. However, many have observed disparities in benefits derived from such improvements across populations and demographic groups. This review summarizes published works that contextualize modern disparities in breast cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and presents potential strategies for reducing disparities. We conducted searches for studies that directly investigated and/or reported disparities in breast cancer prevention, detection, or treatment. Demographic factors, social determinants of health, and inequitable healthcare delivery may impede the ability of individuals and communities to employ risk-mitigating behaviors and prevention strategies. The disparate access to quality screening and timely diagnosis experienced by various groups poses significant hurdles to optimal care and survival. Finally, barriers to access and inequitable healthcare delivery patterns reinforce inequitable application of standards of care. Cumulatively, these disparities underlie notable differences in the incidence, severity, and survival of breast cancers. Efforts toward mitigation will require collaborative approaches and partnerships between communities, governments, and healthcare organizations, which must be considered equal stakeholders in the fight for equity in breast cancer care and outcomes.

Integration of Genetic Testing and Counseling in Patients With Breast Cancer in a Large, Multisite Community-Based Practice

PURPOSE

Despite data-driven consensus recommendations, there remains significant nonadherence to genetic screening and testing. More than 300,000 patients are diagnosed with breast cancer annually, with one third of these estimated to be eligible for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)/BRCA testing following National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Only 35% of eligible patients are referred for genetic counseling.

METHODS

The goal of this project was to apply NCCN guidelines for germline genetic testing to all new patients with breast cancer within a large community oncology practice to improve HRD/BRCA testing. Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology was used, and cycles were built on a proven teaching infrastructure. In cycle 1, providers were educated and directed to use electronic health record (EHR) templates in the setting of an initial diagnosis visit and treatment planning. Discreet data fields were created in the EHR during cycle 2 to streamline and automate the process. Appropriate patients were referred to the genetics team for further evaluation, counseling, and testing. Adherence to the plan was maintained and measured using data analytic reports and chart audits.

RESULTS

Of the 1,203 patients with breast cancer eligible for inclusion, 1,200 (99%) were screened according to NCCN guidelines. Of the screened patients, 631 (52.5%) met the referral/testing criteria. In total, 585 (92.7%) of the 631 were referred to a genetic specialist. Seven percent had previous referrals. A total of 449 (71%) patients were acceptable to genetics referral while 136 (21.5%) patients refused.

CONCLUSION

The implemented methods of education, NCCN guidelines imbedded within provider notes, and discreet data fields in the EHR have proven to be highly effective in screening appropriate patients and ordering subsequent genetic referrals.

Satisfaction with Care and Attention to Age-Specific Concerns by Race and Ethnicity in a National Sample of Young Women with Breast Cancer

Purpose: In light of disparities in breast cancer care and outcomes, we explored whether attention to fertility, genetic, and emotional health concerns, as well as satisfaction with care, differs by race/ethnicity among young breast cancer patients. Methods: The Young and Strong Study was a cluster randomized trial of an intervention for patients and providers at 54 U.S. oncology practices enrolling women diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤45 years of age. Provider attention to fertility, genetics, and emotional health was evaluated by medical record review. The proportions of patients with attention to these concerns were compared by race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black [NHB], Asian, non-Hispanic White [NHW], or multiracial/other). Satisfaction with care was assessed with the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18 (PSQ-18) at 3 months, with median scores for each of 7 PSQ-18 subscales (general satisfaction, interpersonal manner, communication, financial, time spent with doctor, accessibility, and technical quality) compared by race/ethnicity. Results: Among 465 patients, median age at diagnosis was 40; 6% were Hispanic, 11% NHB, 4% were Asian, 75% NHW, and 3% multiracial/other. Provider attention to genetics, emotional health, and fertility did not differ by race/ethnicity. Median PSQ-18 scores did not differ by race/ethnicity, with median subscale scores ranging from 3.0 to 4.5 across groups, indicating high levels of satisfaction. Conclusion: Satisfaction with care and provider attention to age-specific concerns were similar across racial/ethnic groups among young patients enrolled in an educational and supportive care intervention study. These data suggest that high-quality, equitable care is feasible. Further care delivery research is warranted in more diverse patient and practice settings. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT01647607.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Olaparib for Patients With Breast Cancer and Germline BRCA1/2 Mutations

Importance

The OlympiA trial found that 1 year of adjuvant olaparib therapy can improve distant disease-free survival and overall survival from early-stage breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation. However, olaparib, an oral poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase inhibitor, is estimated to cost approximately $14 000 per month in the US.

Objective

To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib compared with no olaparib in eligible patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In an economic evaluation from a health care system perspective, the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib was analyzed using a Markov state-transition model. The model simulated costs and lifetime health outcomes of 42-year-old women with high-risk early-stage breast cancer and a known BRCA1/2 mutation who completed definitive primary therapy and neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic therapy. The study was conducted from August 2021 to July 2023. The effectiveness of olaparib was based on the findings of the OlympiA randomized clinical trial, and other model parameters were identified from the literature. The model was calibrated to the 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year distant disease-free and overall survival observed in the OlympiA trial, and olaparib was assumed to reduce the risk of distant recurrence only in the first 4 years.

Exposure

One year of adjuvant olaparib or no adjuvant olaparib.

Main Outcome and Measure

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2021 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. All outcomes were discounted by 3% annually.

Results

In the base case, adjuvant olaparib was associated with a 1.25-year increase in life expectancy and a 1.20-QALY increase at an incremental cost of $133 133 compared with no olaparib. The resulting ICER was approximately $111 000 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY, olaparib was cost-effective at its 2021 price and in more than 92% of simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The results were sensitive to assumptions about the effectiveness of olaparib and quality of life for patients with no disease recurrence.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, from a US health care system perspective, adjuvant olaparib was a cost-effective option for patients with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation.

Artificial intelligence and urology: ethical considerations for urologists and patients

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine and in urology specifically has increased over the past few years, during which time it has enabled optimization of patient workflow, increased diagnostic accuracy and enhanced computer analysis of radiological and pathological images. However, before further use of AI is undertaken, possible ethical issues need to be evaluated to improve understanding of this technology and to protect patients and providers. Possible ethical issues that require consideration when applying AI in clinical practice include patient safety, cybersecurity, transparency and interpretability of the data, inclusivity and equity, fostering responsibility and accountability, and the preservation of providers' decision-making and autonomy. Ethical principles for the application of AI to health care and in urology are proposed to guide urologists, patients and regulators to improve use of AI technologies and guide policy-making.

Protocol to evaluate sequential electronic health record-based strategies to increase genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk across diverse patient populations in gynecology practices

BACKGROUND

Germline genetic testing is recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for individuals including, but not limited to, those with a personal history of ovarian cancer, young-onset (< 50 years) breast cancer, and a family history of ovarian cancer or male breast cancer. Genetic testing is underused overall, and rates are consistently lower among Black and Hispanic populations. Behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies, or nudges, directed towards patients and clinicians may increase the use of this evidence-based clinical practice.

METHODS

Patients meeting eligibility for germline genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer will be identified using electronic phenotyping algorithms. A pragmatic cohort study will test three sequential strategies to promote genetic testing, two directed at patients and one directed at clinicians, deployed in the electronic health record (EHR) for patients in OB-GYN clinics across a diverse academic medical center. We will use rapid cycle approaches informed by relevant clinician and patient experiences, health equity, and behavioral economics to optimize and de-risk our strategies and methods before trial initiation. Step 1 will send patients messages through the health system patient portal. For non-responders, step 2 will reach out to patients via text message. For non-responders, Step 3 will contact patients' clinicians using a novel "pend and send" tool in the EHR. The primary implementation outcome is engagement with germline genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition, defined as a scheduled genetic counseling appointment. Patient data collected through the EHR (e.g., race/ethnicity, geocoded address) will be examined as moderators of the impact of the strategies.

DISCUSSION

This study will be one of the first to sequentially examine the effects of patient- and clinician-directed strategies informed by behavioral economics on engagement with breast and ovarian cancer genetic testing. The pragmatic and sequential design will facilitate a large and diverse patient sample, allow for the assessment of incremental gains from different implementation strategies, and permit the assessment of moderators of strategy effectiveness. The findings may help determine the impact of low-cost, highly transportable implementation strategies that can be integrated into healthcare systems to improve the use of genomic medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT05721326. Registered February 10, 2023. https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/study/NCT05721326.

"Just the Facts Ma'am": Moral and Ethical Considerations for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and its Potential to Impact Patient Autonomy and Hope

Applying machine-based learning and synthetic cognition, commonly referred to as artificial intelligence (AI), to medicine intimates prescient knowledge. The ability of these algorithms to potentially unlock secrets held within vast data sets makes them invaluable to healthcare. Complex computer algorithms are routinely used to enhance diagnoses in fields like oncology, cardiology, and neurology. These algorithms have found utility in making healthcare decisions that are often complicated by seemingly endless relationships between exogenous and endogenous variables. They have also found utility in the allocation of limited healthcare resources and the management of end-of-life issues. With the increase in computing power and the ability to test a virtually unlimited number of relationships, scientists and engineers have the unprecedented ability to increase the prognostic confidence that comes from complex data analysis. While these systems present exciting opportunities for the democratization and precision of healthcare, their use raises important moral and ethical considerations around Christian concepts of autonomy and hope. The purpose of this essay is to explore some of the practical limitations associated with AI in medicine and discuss some of the potential theological implications that machine-generated diagnoses may present. Specifically, this article examines how these systems may disrupt the patient and healthcare provider relationship emblematic of Christ's healing mission. Finally, this article seeks to offer insights that might help in the development of a more robust ethical framework for the application of these systems in the future.

Identifying Mediators of Intervention Effects Within a Randomized Controlled Trial to Motivate Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment Among Breast and Ovarian Cancer Survivors

BACKGROUND

A theory-guided Tailored Counseling and Navigation (TCN) intervention successfully increased cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) uptake among cancer survivors at increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Understanding the pathways by which interventions motivate behavior change is important for identifying the intervention's active components.

PURPOSE

We examined whether the TCN intervention exerted effects on CGRA uptake through hypothesized theoretical mediators.

METHODS

Cancer survivors at elevated risk for HBOC were recruited from three statewide cancer registries and were randomly assigned to three arms: TCN (n = 212), Targeted Print (TP, n = 216), and Usual Care (UC, n = 213). Theoretical mediators from the Extended Parallel Process Model, Health Action Planning Approach, and Ottawa Decision Support Framework were assessed at baseline and 1-month follow-up; CGRA uptake was assessed at 6 months. Generalized structural equation modeling was used for mediation analysis.

RESULTS

The TCN effects were most strongly mediated by behavioral intention alone (β = 0.49 and 0.31) and by serial mediation through self-efficacy and intention (β = 0.041 and 0.10) when compared with UC and TP, respectively. In addition, compared with UC, the TCN also increased CGRA through increased perceived susceptibility, knowledge of HBOC, and response efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk communication and behavioral change interventions for hereditary cancer should stress a person's increased genetic risk and the potential benefits of genetic counseling and testing, as well as bolster efficacy beliefs by helping remove barriers to CGRA. System-level and policy interventions are needed to further expand access.

Applying the R = MC2 implementation science heuristic to assess the impact of readiness on reach and implementation of a population-wide genomic screening program

Population-wide genomic screening for genes that have high penetrance and clinical actionability enhances the opportunity to identify individuals at risk for developing hereditary conditions. Organizational readiness has been shown to influence the likelihood of successful implementation of complex initiatives such as the integration of population-wide genomic screening in clinical settings. We use the organizational readiness heuristic R = MC2 to better understand three factors that influence readiness for implementation of In Our DNA SC, a population-wide genomic screening program: motivation to implement, general capacity of an organization, and innovation-specific capacities. We then assessed the influence of these readiness factors on implementation outcomes of reach (measured through enrollment rate) and implementation (measured through the number of DNA samples collected). Data were collected pre-implementation and captured during the three-month pilot phase of the In Our DNA SC program. We collected administrative data from the electronic health record and quantitatively captured elements of readiness through surveys distributed to provider champions and clinical administrative champions at the 10 sites implementing the population-wide genomic screening program. We facilitated innovation-specific capacity through training offered at each site, as well as technical assistance through weekly meetings with other implementing sites, and resources available to all staff. Forty percent of provider champions attended training and 80% of administrative champions attended training. An average of 3.7 additional staff were trained at each implementing site. Satisfaction with training positively influenced reach (β = 0.0121, p = 0.0271) but did not impact implementation. Provider engagement (innovation capabilities) was associated with reach (β = 0.0020, p = 0.0251) and clinical administrator engagement was associated with sample collection rate (β = 0.2599, β = 0.038). Readiness to change is considered one of the most important factors in understanding the potential opportunity for implementation. We found that motivation to adopt a population-wide genomic screening program positively impacted the program's reach. The type of champion influenced discrete outcomes, with provider champions positively impacting reach and administrative champions influencing implementation (assessed through sample collection rate). As genomics continues to be integrated into clinical practice, it will be important to understand the contextual factors that influence readiness for implementation and design support throughout the life-course of implementation to ensure the success of large-scale, complex initiatives.

Ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) and challenges in the design of a randomized controlled trial to test the online return of cancer genetic research results to U.S. Black women

BACKGROUND

A central challenge to precision medicine research efforts is the return of genetic research results in a manner that is effective, ethical, and efficient. Formal tests of alternate modalities are needed, particularly for racially marginalized populations that have historically been underserved in this context.

METHODS

We are conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test scalable modalities for results return and to examine the clinical utility of returning genetic research results to a research cohort of Black women. The primary aim is to compare the efficacy of two communication modalities for results return: 1) a conventional modality that entails telephone disclosure by a Board-certified genetic counselor, and 2) an online self-guided modality that entails results return directly to participants, with optional genetic counselor follow-up via telephone. The trial is being conducted among participants in the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS), where targeted sequencing of 4000 participants was previously completed.

RESULTS

Several ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) and challenges presented, which necessitated substantial revision of the original study protocol. Challenges included chain of custody, re-testing of research results in a CLIA lab, exclusion of VUS results, and digital literacy. Bioethical principles of autonomy, justice, non-maleficence, and beneficence were considered in the design of the study protocol.

CONCLUSION

This study is uniquely situated to provide critical evidence on the effectiveness of alternative models for genetic results return and provide further insight into the factors influencing access and uptake of genetic information among U.S. Black women.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: NCT04407611.

Precision medicine and the problem of structural injustice

Many countries currently invest in technologies and data infrastructures to foster precision medicine (PM), which is hoped to better tailor disease treatment and prevention to individual patients. But who can expect to benefit from PM? The answer depends not only on scientific developments but also on the willingness to address the problem of structural injustice. One important step is to confront the problem of underrepresentation of certain populations in PM cohorts via improved research inclusivity. Yet, we argue that the perspective needs to be broadened because the (in)equitable effects of PM are also strongly contingent on wider structural factors and prioritization of healthcare strategies and resources. When (and before) implementing PM, it is crucial to attend to how the organisation of healthcare systems influences who will benefit, as well as whether PM may present challenges for a solidaristic sharing of costs and risks. We discuss these issues through a comparative lens of healthcare models and PM-initiatives in the United States, Austria, and Denmark. The analysis draws attention to how PM hinges on-and simultaneously affects-access to healthcare services, public trust in data handling, and prioritization of healthcare resources. Finally, we provide suggestions for how to mitigate foreseeable negative effects.

Factors Influencing Genetic Screening Enrollment among a Diverse, Community-Ascertained Cohort

INTRODUCTION

Genetic screening for preventable adult-onset hereditary conditions has been proposed as a mechanism to reduce health disparities. Analysis of how race and ethnicity influence decision-making to receive screening can inform recruitment efforts and more equitable population screening design. A study at the University of Washington Medicine that invited unselected patients to participate in genetic screening for pathogenic variation in medically important genes provided an opportunity to evaluate these factors.

METHODS

We analyzed screening enrollee survey data to understand factors most important and least important in decision-making about screening overall and across different race and ethnicity groups. Electronic health record race and ethnicity and survey-reported race and ethnicity were compared to assist with interpretation. Comments provided about reasons for not enrolling in screening were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, learning about disease risk and identifying risk early for prevention purposes were important factors in decision-making to receive screening, and regrets about screening and screening being against one's moral code were not viewed as important. Although racial identity was challenging to assign in all cases, compared to other enrollees, African-American and Asian enrollees considered test accuracy and knowing more about the test to be of greater importance. Three themes emerged related to nonparticipation: benefits do not outweigh risks, don't want to know, and challenges with study logistics.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight important motivators for receiving screening and areas that can be addressed to increase screening interest and accessibility. This knowledge can inform future population screening program design including recruitment and education approaches.

Evaluation of disparities in perceived healthcare discrimination among BRCA1/2-positive women from medically underserved populations

The current study evaluated associations between disparities relating to race/ethnicity, poverty status, educational status, and odds of experiencing healthcare discrimination among women with BRCA1/2 mutations. We conducted a cross-sectional study of United States (US)-based women (18+ years) who have tested positive for BRCA1/2 mutations within the past 5 years and who identify with one or more medically underserved populations. 211 women were recruited from BRCA1/2-oriented support groups and completed an online survey. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression models for associations between race/ethnicity, poverty status, education, and perceived healthcare discrimination adjusting for covariates. 182 women were included (31.3 percent were cancer survivors). Most were NHW (67.2 percent) and younger than 50 years (83.2 percent). Racial/ethnic minorities were 2.6 times more likely to report receiving poorer service than NHW women (95 percent CI, 1.26-5.33, p = .01). Associations with poverty status, education, and healthcare discrimination outcomes were not statistically significant. Improving patient-provider interactions that can contribute to medical mistrust should become a priority for the care of high-risk US minority women with BRCA1/2 mutations.

Germline Genetic Testing After Cancer Diagnosis

Importance

Germline genetic testing is recommended by practice guidelines for patients diagnosed with cancer to enable genetically targeted treatment and identify relatives who may benefit from personalized cancer screening and prevention.

Objective

To describe the prevalence of germline genetic testing among patients diagnosed with cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2019.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Observational study including patients aged 20 years or older who had been diagnosed with any type of cancer between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, that was reported to statewide Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in California and Georgia. These patients were linked to genetic testing results from 4 laboratories that performed most germline testing for California and Georgia.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was germline genetic testing within 2 years of a cancer diagnosis. Testing trends were analyzed with logistic regression modeling. The results of sequencing each gene, including variants associated with increased cancer risk (pathogenic results) and variants whose cancer risk association was unknown (uncertain results), were evaluated. The genes were categorized according to their primary cancer association, including breast or ovarian, gastrointestinal, and other, and whether practice guidelines recommended germline testing.

Results

Among 1 369 602 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2013 and 2019 in California and Georgia, 93 052 (6.8%) underwent germline testing through March 31, 2021. The proportion of patients tested varied by cancer type: male breast (50%), ovarian (38.6%), female breast (26%), multiple (7.5%), endometrial (6.4%), pancreatic (5.6%), colorectal (5.6%), prostate (1.1%), and lung (0.3%). In a logistic regression model, compared with the 31% (95% CI, 30%-31%) of non-Hispanic White patients with male breast cancer, female breast cancer, or ovarian cancer who underwent testing, patients of other races and ethnicities underwent testing less often: 22% (95% CI, 21%-22%) of Asian patients, 25% (95% CI, 24%-25%) of Black patients, and 23% (95% CI, 23%-23%) of Hispanic patients (P < .001 using the χ2 test). Of all pathogenic results, 67.5% to 94.9% of variants were identified in genes for which practice guidelines recommend testing and 68.3% to 83.8% of variants were identified in genes associated with the diagnosed cancer type.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients diagnosed with cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2019, only 6.8% underwent germline genetic testing. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, rates of testing were lower among Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients.

Evaluating cancer genetic services in a safety net system: overcoming barriers for a lasting impact beyond the CHARM research project

Underserved patients face substantial barriers to receiving cancer genetic services. The Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study evaluated ways to increase access to genetic testing for individuals in underserved populations at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS). Here, we report the successful implementation of CHARM in a low-resource environment and the development of sustainable processes to continue genetic risk assessment in this setting. The research team involved key clinical personnel and patient advisors at Denver Health to provide input on study methods and materials. Through iterative and collaborative stakeholder engagement, the team identified barriers and developed solutions that would both facilitate participation in CHARM and be feasible to implement and sustain long term in clinical care. With a focus on infrastructure building, educational modules were developed to increase awareness among referring providers, and standard methods of identifying and managing HCS patients were implemented in the electronic medical record. Three hundred sixty-four DH patients successfully completed the risk assessment tool within the study, and we observed a sustained increase in referrals to genetics for HCS (from 179 in 2017 to 427 in 2021 post-intervention). Implementation of the CHARM study at a low-resourced safety net health system resulted in sustainable improvements in access to cancer genetic risk assessment and services that continue even after the study ended.Trial registration NCT03426878.

Germline Testing Around the Globe: Challenges in Different Practice Settings

Cancer is an increasing global public health burden. Lately, more emphasis has emerged on the importance of heredity in cancer, mostly driven by the introduction of germline genetic variants-directed therapeutics. It is true that 40% of cancer risk is attributed to modifiable environmental and lifestyle factors; still, 16% of cancers could be heritable, accounting for 2.9 of the 18.1 million cases diagnosed worldwide. At least two third of those will be diagnosed in countries with limited resources-low- and middle-income countries, especially where high rates of consanguine marriage and early age at diagnosis are already prevalent. Both are hallmarks of hereditary cancer. This creates a new opportunity for prevention, early detection, and recently therapeutic intervention. However, this opportunity is challenged by many obstacles along the path to addressing germline testing in patients with cancer in the clinic worldwide. Global collaboration and expertise exchange are important to bridge the knowledge gap and facilitate practical implementation. Adapting existing guidelines and prioritization according to local resources are essential to address the unique needs and overcome the unique barriers of each society.

Diagnostic yield of genetic screening in a diverse, community-ascertained cohort

BACKGROUND

Population screening for genetic risk of adult-onset preventable conditions has been proposed as an attractive public health intervention. Screening unselected individuals can identify many individuals who will not be identified through current genetic testing guidelines.

METHODS

We sought to evaluate enrollment in and diagnostic yield of population genetic screening in a resource-limited setting among a diverse population. We developed a low-cost, short-read next-generation sequencing panel of 25 genes that had 98.4% sensitivity and 99.98% specificity compared to diagnostic panels. We used email invitations to recruit a diverse cohort of patients in the University of Washington Medical Center system unselected for personal or family history of hereditary disease. Participants were sent a saliva collection kit in the mail with instructions on kit use and return. Results were returned using a secure online portal. Enrollment and diagnostic yield were assessed overall and across race and ethnicity groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 40,857 people were invited and 2889 (7.1%) enrolled. Enrollment varied across race and ethnicity groups, with the lowest enrollment among African American individuals (3.3%) and the highest among Multiracial or Other Race individuals (13.0%). Of 2864 enrollees who received screening results, 106 actionable variants were identified in 103 individuals (3.6%). Of those who screened positive, 30.1% already knew about their results from prior genetic testing. The diagnostic yield was 74 new, actionable genetic findings (2.6%). The addition of more recently identified cancer risk genes increased the diagnostic yield of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Population screening can identify additional individuals that could benefit from prevention, but challenges in recruitment and sample collection will reduce actual enrollment and yield. These challenges should not be overlooked in intervention planning or in cost and benefit analysis.

Residential Locale Is Associated with Disparities in Genetic Testing-Related Outcomes Among BRCA1/2-Positive Women

BACKGROUND

While research on hereditary genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations continues to emerge, there remain unanswered questions regarding access to testing and cancer-related care. Our study determined the associations between race/ethnicity, residential locale, and genetic testing provider and related outcomes among US women with BRCA1/2 genetic mutations.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-three BRCA1/2-positive women from vulnerable health backgrounds were recruited via private national Facebook BRCA1/2-oriented support groups and completed an online survey. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression for the associations between race/ethnicity, residential locale, and genetic testing-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Women ranged in age (18-75, M = 39.5, SD = 10.7), and most were non-Hispanic white (66.3%) and lived in a suburban locale (54.9%). Women living in suburban areas were significantly less likely (aOR, .369, 95% CI, .177-.771) to receive behavioral referrals after genetic testing compared to those living in an urban locale. Women living in rural areas and suburban areas were 4.72 times more likely (95% CI, 1.48-15.1, p = .009) and 2.61 times more likely (95% CI, 1.05-6.48, p = .038), respectively, to receive genetic testing from a primary care provider versus private genetic testing office/hospital compared to women in urban locales. Associations between race/ethnicity and genetic testing outcomes were not statistically significant. Residential locale did not predict the odds of undergoing surgery for risk reduction or surveillance for early detection.

CONCLUSION

Our study identifies disparities in genetic testing resources among women living in suburban and rural areas. These findings can be used to inform future care, research, and community resources that may impact services relating to genetic testing within these locales.

Communicating risk and the landscape of cancer prevention - an exploratory study that examines perceptions of cancer-related genetic counseling and testing among African Americans and Latinos in the Midwest

African American (AA) and Latino populations are impacted disproportionately by cancer incidence and mortality compared to the general US population. Contributing to these rates are multiple inheritable cancers that impact both men and women. Some of these diseases may be detected through genetic counseling and germline DNA testing; however, AA and Latinos are unaware and have limited knowledge and thus significantly underutilize these services and technologies. Research to detect influencing factors to testing uptake has also been slow due to multiple factors. The research team followed a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach and worked with a Community Advisory Board composed of cancer survivors and co-survivors to design the exploratory study. Six focus groups were held with a pilot sample of African Americans and Latinos who self-reported to be at-risk for cancer (N = 53). The study was held over a 2-month period where attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about cancer risk and preference regarding cancer-related genetic counseling and testing risk communication were explored. Themes that emerged included (1) the lack of knowledge about cancer-related genetic counseling and testing; (2) cancer is feared often; (3) cancer-related genetic testing was perceived as something that could help but was also perceived as unnecessary testing that exposed individuals to medical harm; and (4) benefits to test were perceived as favorable for medical personnel but not for the patient. Implications of the study provide a unique lens to explore how lived experiences among AA and Latinos may inform strategic risk communication about cancer-related genetic counseling and testing and help advance cancer health equity. Participants viewed cancer genetic testing as important cancer risk prevention strategies. Identification of perceptions of cancer risk and cancer-related genetic counseling and testing in collaboration with members of the community is needed to bolster communication efforts among these populations.

Nationwide Trends and Determinants of Germline BRCA1/2 Testing in Patients With Breast and Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND

Germline genetic testing (GT) for BRCA1/2 is instrumental in identifying patients with breast and ovarian cancers who are eligible for PARP inhibitors (PARPi). Little is known about recent trends and determinants of GT since PARPi were approved for these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients in a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived oncology-specific database with the following GT eligibility criteria: breast cancer diagnosed at age ≤45 years, triple-negative breast cancer diagnosed at age ≤60 years, male breast cancer, or ovarian cancer. GT within 1 year of diagnosis was assessed and stratified by tumor type. Multivariable log-binomial regressions estimated adjusted relative risks (RRs) of GT by patient and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 2,982 eligible patients with breast cancer, 56.4% underwent GT between January 2011 and March 2020, with a significant increase in GT over time (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11, for each year), independent of when PARPi were approved for BRCA1/2-mutated metastatic breast cancer in January 2018. In multivariable analyses, older age (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.96, for every 5 years) and Medicare coverage (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96 vs commercial insurance) were associated with less GT. Among 5,563 eligible patients with ovarian cancer, 35.4% underwent GT between January 2011 and March 2020, with a significant increase in GT over time (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.14, for each year) that accelerated after approval of PARPi for BRCA1/2-mutated, chemotherapy-refractory ovarian cancer in December 2014 (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.19-1.70). Older age (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93-0.97, for every 5 years) and Black or African American race (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.98 vs White race) were associated with less GT.

CONCLUSIONS

GT remains underutilized nationwide among patients with breast and ovarian cancers. Although GT has increased over time, significant disparities by age, race, and insurance status persist. Additional work is needed to design, implement, and evaluate strategies to ensure that all eligible patients receive GT.

Missed opportunities in the real-world genetic testing in BRCA gene variant carriers with cancers meeting NCCN criteria

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of patients meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)'s BRCA genetic testing criteria prior to a diagnosis of a BRCA-related cancer.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of patients with BRCA pathogenic variants and a diagnosis of a BRCA-related cancer. Patients were included if they had known dates of genetic testing and cancer diagnosis. NCCN criteria (version 2.2021) were applied to determine if patients met criteria for testing before a BRCA-related cancer diagnosis. The outcome of interest was the proportion of patients undergoing genetic testing following a diagnosis of a BRCA-related cancer who qualified for genetic testing based on NCCN criteria. Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression were performed with significance at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of 270 patients with a BRCA-related cancer, 229 (85%) underwent genetic testing after a cancer diagnosis. Most patients (97%) met at least one NCCN criteria for BRCA testing; 166 (73%) of patients who were tested following a BRCA-related cancer diagnosis also met the criteria for testing by family history. Publicly insured or uninsured patients were three times more likely to undergo BRCA testing after a diagnosis of cancer (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-8.40). Patients with a family history of pathogenic variants were more likely to undergo testing before a cancer diagnosis (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05-0.23).

CONCLUSION

Most patients with BRCA-associated cancers undergo genetic testing after their cancer diagnosis. Increased education on genetic testing criteria and novel methods to improve testing are desperately needed.

Ethical, Legal, and Financial Considerations of Artificial Intelligence in Surgery

Machine learning systems have become integrated into some of the most vital decision-making aspects of humanity, including hiring decisions, loan applications, and automobile safety, to name just a few. As applications increase in both gravity and complexity, the data quality and algorithmic interpretability of the systems must rise to meet those challenges. This is especially vital for navigating the nuances of health care, particularly among the high stakes of surgical operations. In addition to inherent ethical challenges of enabling a "black box" system to influence decision-making in patient care, the creation of biased datasets leads to biased algorithms with the power to perpetuate discrimination and reinforce disparities. Transparency and responsibility are paramount to the implementation of artificial intelligence in surgical decision-making and autonomous robotic surgery. Machine learning has been permeating health care across diverse clinical and surgical contexts but continues to face sizable obstacles, including apprehension from patients and providers alike. To integrate the technology fully while upholding standard of care and patient-provider trust, one must acknowledge and address the ethical, financial, and legal implications of using artificial intelligence for patient care.

Implementation of a Population-Based Cancer Family History Screening Program for Lynch Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

Lynch syndrome increases risks for colorectal and other cancers. Though published Lynch syndrome cancer risk-management guidelines are effective for risk-reduction, the condition remains under-recognized. The Cancer Genetics Program at an academic medical center implemented a population-based cancer family history screening program, Detecting Unaffected Individuals with Lynch syndrome, to aid in identification of individuals with Lynch syndrome.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, simple cancer family history screening questionnaires were used to identify those at risk for Lynch syndrome. Program navigators triaged and educated those who screened positive about hereditary cancer, and genetic counseling and testing services, offering genetic counseling if eligible. Genetic counseling was provided primarily via telephone. Genetic counselors performed hereditary cancer risk assessment and offered genetic testing via hereditary cancer panels to those eligible. Remote service delivery models via telephone genetic counseling and at-home saliva testing were used to increase access to medical genetics services.

RESULTS

This program screened 212,827 individuals, over half of whom were considered underserved, and identified 133 clinically actionable genetic variants associated with hereditary cancer. Of these, 47 (35%) were associated with Lynch syndrome while notably, 70 (53%) were not associated with hereditary colorectal cancer. Of 3,344 patients offered genetic counseling after initial triage, 2,441 (73%) elected to schedule the appointment and 1,775 individuals (73%) completed genetic counseling. Among underserved patients, telephone genetic counseling completion rates were significantly higher than in-person appointment completion rates (P < .05). While remote service delivery improved appointment completion rates, challenges with genetic test completion using at-home saliva sample collection kits were observed, with 242 of 1592 individuals (15%) not completing testing.

CONCLUSION

Population-based cancer family history screening and navigation can help identify individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes across diverse patient populations, but logistics of certain downstream service delivery models can impact outcomes.

Germline Genetic Testing in Breast Cancer: Systemic Therapy Implications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this article, we discuss recent advances in germline genetic testing for patients with breast cancer and highlight current limitations and impacts on clinical care. We also provide an update on the therapeutic implications of having a germline mutation, including targeted systemic therapy options for treating early and metastatic breast cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Approximately 5 to 10% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have a pathogenic variant in a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, which has significant implications for managing these patients. Previously, testing was done mainly to inform screening and risk-reduction treatment; however, more recently, germline genetic results have significant systemic therapy implications that can meaningfully improve outcomes in breast cancer patients, especially with oral poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. These systemic therapy advances implore a shift in paradigm for whom to test moving forward and how to modify the existing testing models to meet the increasing demand for germline testing, which is expected to grow exponentially.

The Role of Race and Insurance Status in Access to Genetic Counseling and Testing Among High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients

Purpose

The role of germline genetic testing in breast cancer patients is crucial, especially in the setting of the recent trials showing the benefit of PARP inhibitors. The goal of this study was to identify racial disparities in genetic counseling and testing in patients with high-risk breast cancer.

Methods

Patients with 2 unique breast cancer diagnoses were examined to understand demographics, insurance coverage, characteristics of breast cancer, and whether they were recommended for and received genetic counseling and testing.

Results

A total of 69 patients with a dual diagnosis of breast cancer between the years 2000 and 2017 were identified (42% identified as White compared to 58% that identified as non-White). White patients were more likely to be recommended for genetic counseling (OR = 2.85; 95% CI, 1.07-7.93, P < .05), be referred for genetic counseling (OR = 3.17; 95% CI, 1.19-8.86, P < .05), receive counseling (OR = 3.82; 95% CI, 1.42-10.83, P < .01), and undergo genetic testing (OR = 2.88; 95% CI, 0.97-9.09, P = .056) compared to non-White patients. Patients with private insurance were significantly more likely to be recommended for genetic counseling (OR 5.63, P < .005), referred (OR 6.11, P < .005), receive counseling (OR 4.21, P < .05), and undergo testing (OR 4.10, P < .05). When controlled for insurance, there was no significant racial differences in the rates of GC recommendation, referral, counseling, or testing.

Conclusion

The findings of this study suggest that disparities in genetic counseling and testing are largely driven by differences in health insurance.

Screening for Individuals at Risk for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Statewide Initiative, Georgia, 2012-2020

Georgia implemented a statewide family history screening program for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. From November 2012 through December 2020, 29 090 individuals were screened, 16 679 of whom (57.3%) self-identified as a racial/ethnic minority. Of the 4% (1172/29 090) of individuals who screened as high risk, more than half underwent genetic consultation (793/1172; 67.7%) and testing (416/589; 70.6%). Compared with White women, Black and Hispanic women had higher uptake rates of genetic consultation. Public health settings serving racial minorities are well suited to address disparities in genetic service access. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(9):1249-1252. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306932).

Primary care physician referral practices regarding BRCA1/2 genetic counseling in a major health system

PURPOSE

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends primary care physicians refer patients at high risk for BRCA1/2 mutations to genetic testing when appropriate. The objective of our study was to describe referrals for BRCA1/2 testing in a large integrated health system and to assess factors associated with referral.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study includes female patients between 18 and 50 years who had a primary care visit in the Cleveland Clinic Health System between 2010 and 2019. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate differences in the odds of a woman being referred for BRCA1/2 testing by patient factors and referring physician specialty. We also assessed variation in referrals by physicians.

RESULTS

Among 279,568 women, 5% were high risk. Of those, 22% were referred for testing. Black patients were significantly less likely to be referred than white patients (aOR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77, 0.98) and Jewish patients were more likely to be referred than non-Jewish patients (aOR 2.13; 95% CI 1.68, 2.70). Patients primarily managed by OB/GYN were significantly more likely to be referred than those cared for via Internal/Family Medicine (aOR 1.45; 95% CI 1.30, 1.61). Less than a quarter of primary care physicians ever referred a patient for testing.

CONCLUSION

The majority of primary care patients at high risk for a BRCA1/2 mutation were not referred for testing, and over a decade, most physicians never referred a single patient. Internal/Family Medicine physicians, in particular, need support in identifying and referring women who could benefit from testing.

Pilot study of a culturally sensitive intervention to promote genetic counseling for breast cancer risk

BACKGROUND

Despite the benefits of genetic counseling and testing, uptake of cancer genetic services is generally low and Black/African American (Black) women are substantially less likely to receive genetic services than non-Hispanic White women. Our team developed a culturally sensitive, narrative decision aid video to promote uptake of genetic counseling among Black women at risk for a hereditary breast cancer syndrome that can be incorporated in conjunction with population-based cancer risk assessment in a clinical setting. We report here a pilot study to demonstrate changes in intention to access genetic counseling and intervention satisfaction.

METHODS

Black women who were personally unaffected by breast cancer and were recommended for genetic counseling based on family history screening in a mammography center were recruited at the time of the mammogram. A prospective, pre-post survey study design, guided by theoretical constructs, was used to evaluate baseline and immediate post-intervention psychosocial factors, including intention to participate in genetic counseling and intervention satisfaction.

RESULTS

Pilot recruitment goals were met (n = 30). Pre-intervention, 50% of participants indicated that they were extremely likely to make a genetic counseling appointment, compared with 70% post-intervention (p = 0.05). After watching the intervention, 50% of participants indicated that the video changed their mind regarding genetic counseling.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated cultural satisfaction with a decision aid intervention designed to motivate Black women with hereditary breast cancer risk to attend a genetic counseling appointment. Our study showed that intention may be a specific and key construct to target in interventions designed to support decision-making about genetic services. Study results informed the design of a subsequent large scale, randomized implementation study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04082117 . Registered September 9, 2019. Retrospectively registered.

Literacy-adapted, electronic family history assessment for genetics referral in primary care: patient user insights from qualitative interviews

BACKGROUND

Risk assessment for hereditary cancer syndromes is recommended in primary care, but family history is rarely collected in enough detail to facilitate risk assessment and referral - a roadblock that disproportionately impacts individuals with healthcare access barriers. We sought to qualitatively assess a literacy-adapted, electronic patient-facing family history tool developed for use in diverse, underserved patient populations recruited in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study.

METHODS

Interview participants were recruited from a subpopulation of CHARM participants who experienced barriers to tool use in terms of spending a longer time to complete the tool, having incomplete attempts, and/or providing inaccurate family history in comparison to a genetic counselor-collected standard. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants about barriers and facilitators to tool use and overall tool acceptability; interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were coded based on a codebook developed using inductive techniques, and coded excerpts were reviewed to identify overarching themes related to barriers and facilitators to family history self-assessment and acceptability of the study tool.

RESULTS

Interviewees endorsed the tool as easy to navigate and understand. However, they described barriers related to family history information, literacy and language, and certain tool functions. Participants offered concrete, easy-to-implement solutions to each barrier. Despite experience barriers to use of the tool, most participants indicated that electronic family history self-assessment was acceptable or preferable in comparison to clinician-collected family history.

CONCLUSIONS

Even for participants who experienced barriers to tool use, family history self-assessment was considered an acceptable alternative to clinician-collected family history. Barriers experienced could be overcome with minor adaptations to the current family history tool.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is a sub-study of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) trial, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03426878. Registered 8 February 2018.

Addressing the routine failure to clinically identify monogenic cases of common disease

Changes in medical practice are needed to improve the diagnosis of monogenic forms of selected common diseases. This article seeks to focus attention on the need for universal genetic testing in common diseases for which the recommended clinical management of patients with specific monogenic forms of disease diverges from standard management and has evidence for improved outcomes.We review evidence from genomic screening of large patient cohorts, which has confirmed that important monogenic case identification failures are commonplace in routine clinical care. These case identification failures constitute diagnostic misattributions, where the care of individuals with monogenic disease defaults to the treatment plan offered to those with polygenic or non-genetic forms of the disease.The number of identifiable and actionable monogenic forms of common diseases is increasing with time. Here, we provide six examples of common diseases for which universal genetic test implementation would drive improved care. We examine the evidence to support genetic testing for common diseases, and discuss barriers to widespread implementation. Finally, we propose recommendations for changes to genetic testing and care delivery aimed at reducing diagnostic misattributions, to serve as a starting point for further evaluation and development of evidence-based guidelines for implementation.

Laboratory-related outcomes from integrating an accessible delivery model for hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in populations with barriers to access

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the laboratory-related outcomes of participants who were offered genomic testing based on cancer family history risk assessment tools.

METHODS

Patients from clinics that serve populations with access barriers, who are screened at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome based on adapted family history collection tools (the Breast Cancer Genetics Referral Screening Tool and PREMM₅), were offered exome-based panel testing for cancer risk and medically actionable secondary findings. We used descriptive statistics, electronic health record review, and inferential statistics to explore participant characteristics and results, consultations and actions related to pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants identified, and variables predicting category of findings, respectively.

RESULTS

Of all the participants, 87% successfully returned a saliva kit. Overall, 5% had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic cancer risk variant and 1% had a secondary finding. Almost all (14/15, 93%) participants completed recommended consultations with nongenetics providers after an average of 17 months. The recommended actions (eg, breast magnetic resonance imaging) were completed by 17 of 25 participants. Participant personal history of cancer and PREMM₅ score were each associated with the category of findings (history and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .02; history and breast cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .01; PREMM₅^TM score; and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This accessible model of hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing yielded results that were often acted upon by patients and physicians.

Diversity in Machine Learning: A Systematic Review of Text-Based Diagnostic Applications

OBJECTIVE

 As the storage of clinical data has transitioned into electronic formats, medical informatics has become increasingly relevant in providing diagnostic aid. The purpose of this review is to evaluate machine learning models that use text data for diagnosis and to assess the diversity of the included study populations.

METHODS

 We conducted a systematic literature review on three public databases. Two authors reviewed every abstract for inclusion. Articles were included if they used or developed machine learning algorithms to aid in diagnosis. Articles focusing on imaging informatics were excluded.

RESULTS

 From 2,260 identified papers, we included 78. Of the machine learning models used, neural networks were relied upon most frequently (44.9%). Studies had a median population of 661.5 patients, and diseases and disorders of 10 different body systems were studied. Of the 35.9% (N = 28) of papers that included race data, 57.1% (N = 16) of study populations were majority White, 14.3% were majority Asian, and 7.1% were majority Black. In 75% (N = 21) of papers, White was the largest racial group represented. Of the papers included, 43.6% (N = 34) included the sex ratio of the patient population.

DISCUSSION

 With the power to build robust algorithms supported by massive quantities of clinical data, machine learning is shaping the future of diagnostics. Limitations of the underlying data create potential biases, especially if patient demographics are unknown or not included in the training.

CONCLUSION

 As the movement toward clinical reliance on machine learning accelerates, both recording demographic information and using diverse training sets should be emphasized. Extrapolating algorithms to demographics beyond the original study population leaves large gaps for potential biases.

Health equity in the implementation of genomics and precision medicine: A public health imperative

Recent reviews have emphasized the need for a health equity agenda in genomics research. To ensure that genomic discoveries can lead to improved health outcomes for all segments of the population, a health equity agenda needs to go beyond research studies. Advances in genomics and precision medicine have led to an increasing number of evidence-based applications that can reduce morbidity and mortality for millions of people (tier 1). Studies have shown lower implementation rates for selected diseases with tier 1 applications (familial hypercholesterolemia, Lynch syndrome, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) among racial and ethnic minority groups, rural communities, uninsured or underinsured people, and those with lower education and income. We make the case that a public health agenda is needed to address disparities in implementation of genomics and precision medicine. Public health actions can be centered on population-specific needs and outcomes assessment, policy and evidence development, and assurance of delivery of effective and ethical interventions. Crucial public health activities also include engaging communities, building coalitions, improving genetic health literacy, and building a diverse workforce. Without concerted public health action, further advances in genomics with potentially broad applications could lead to further widening of health disparities in the next decade.

Initiation and tolerance of chemoprevention among women with high-risk breast lesions: the potential of low-dose tamoxifen

Purpose

High-risk lesions (HRLs) of the breast are an indication for chemoprevention, yet uptake is low, largely due to concerns about side effects. In 2019, low-dose (5 mg) tamoxifen was demonstrated to reduce breast cancer risk with improved tolerance. We describe chemoprevention uptake in an academic clinic before and after the introduction of low-dose tamoxifen.

Methods

Females age ≥ 35 with HRLs who established care from April 2017 through January 2020 and eligible for chemoprevention were included. Rates of chemoprevention initiation before and after the introduction of low-dose tamoxifen (pre-2019 vs. post-2019) were compared with chi-squared tests. Logistic regression identified demographic and clinical factors associated with chemoprevention initiation. Kaplan–Meier methods determined the rates of discontinuation.

Results

Among 660 eligible females with HRLs, 22.7% initiated chemoprevention. Median time from first visit to chemoprevention initiation was 54 days (interquartile range (IQR): 0–209); 31.0% (46/150) started chemoprevention > 6 months after their initial visit. Chemoprevention uptake was not significantly different pre-2019 vs. post-2019 (21.2% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.16); however, post-2019, low-dose tamoxifen became the most popular option (41.5%, 34/82). On multivariable analyses, age and breast cancer family history were significantly associated with chemoprevention initiation. Discontinuation rates at 1 year were lowest for low-dose tamoxifen (6.7%) vs. tamoxifen 20 mg (15.0%), raloxifene (20.4%), or an aromatase inhibitor (20.0%).

Conclusion

In this modern cohort, 22.7% of females with HRLs initiated chemoprevention with 31.0% initiating chemoprevention > 6 months after their first visit. Low-dose tamoxifen is now the most popular choice for chemoprevention, with low discontinuation rates at 1 year.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-022-06577-5.

Equity in Genomic Medicine

Since the completion of the Human Genome Project, considerable progress has been made in translating knowledge about the genetic basis of disease risk and treatment response into clinical services and public health interventions that have greater precision. It is anticipated that more precision approaches to early detection, prevention, and treatment will be developed and will enhance equity in healthcare and outcomes among disparity populations. Reduced access to genomic medicine research, clinical services, and public health interventions has the potential to exacerbate disparities in genomic medicine. The purpose of this article is to describe these challenges to equity in genomic medicine and identify opportunities and future directions for addressing these issues. Efforts are needed to enhance access to genomic medicine research, clinical services, and public health interventions, and additional research that examines the clinical utility of precision medicine among disparity populations should be prioritized to ensure equity in genomic medicine. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Volume 23 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Do current family history-based genetic testing guidelines contribute to breast cancer health inequities?

Prior to the recommended age for population-based breast cancer screening by mammography, which ranges from 40−50 years depending on guidelines, the main way to identify higher risk women for earlier breast cancer (BC) screening to improve outcomes and discuss targeted chemoprevention is through specific clinical guidelines which are largely based on family history of breast cancer and known mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes. The annual percent change (APC) in early-onset BC continues to rise, with the higher early-onset cancer burden and mortality continuing to be seen in non-Hispanic black (NHB) women compared to non-Hispanic white (NHW) women. Coupled with the increasing incidence overall as well as the lower percent of BC family history reported in NHB women compared with that of NHW women means that continued reliance on guidelines to identify women for genetic screening and initiation of early BC screening based largely on family history could lead to even greater BC health inequities. The similarity in the prevalence of mutations in key BC susceptibility genes between NHB and NHW women contrasts sharply to the differences in age-specific incidence rates between NHB and NHW women, supporting that there must be environmental modifiers that are contributing to the increased incidence in NHB women. This reality further argues for identifying NHB women early in adulthood through genetic testing who may benefit from tailored BC risk-reduction programs and early BC screening.

BRCA1/2 testing among young women with breast cancer in Massachusetts, 2010-2013: An observational study using state cancer registry and All-Payer claims data

Background

Testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants is recommended for women aged ≤45 years with breast cancer. Some studies have found racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in testing. We linked Massachusetts' All‐Payer Claims Database with Massachusetts Cancer Registry data to assess factors associated with BRCA1/2 testing among young women with breast cancer in Massachusetts, a state with high levels of access to care and equitable insurance coverage of breast cancer gene (BRCA) testing.

Methods

We identified breast cancer diagnoses in the Massachusetts Cancer Registry from 2010 to 2013 and linked registry data with Massachusetts All‐Payer Claims Data from 2010 to 2014 among women aged ≤45 years with private insurance or Medicaid. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine factors associated with BRCA1/2 testing within 6 months of diagnosis.

Results

The study population included 2424 women; 80.3% were identified as non‐Hispanic White, 6.4% non‐Hispanic Black, and 6.3% Hispanic. Overall, 54.9% received BRCA1/2 testing within 6 months of breast cancer diagnosis. In adjusted analyses, non‐Hispanic Black women had less than half the odds of testing compared with non‐Hispanic White women (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.31, 0.64). Medicaid‐insured women had half the odds of testing compared with privately‐insured women (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.41, 0.63). Living in lower‐income areas was also associated with lower odds of testing. Having an academically‐affiliated oncology clinician was not associated with testing.

Conclusion

Socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities exist in BRCA1/2 testing among women with breast cancer in Massachusetts, despite equitable insurance coverage of testing. Further research should examine whether disparities have persisted with growing testing awareness and availability over time.