Health system interventions to integrate genetic testing in routine oncology services: A systematic review

Universal genetic counseling in breast cancer patients significantly improves overall testing rates and improves completion rates in subpopulations

PURPOSE

The NCCN guidelines recommend genetic testing in those patients at increased risk of breast cancer in order to identify candidates for increased frequency of screening or prophylactic mastectomy. However, genetic testing may now identify patients who may benefit from recently developed targeted breast cancer therapy. In order to more widely identify these patients, we implemented genetic counseling for all patients diagnosed with breast cancer.

METHODS

In 2021, all patients evaluated within a Midwestern community hospital system diagnosed with breast cancer were offered genetic counseling. This group of patients was compared to a cohort of patients in 2021 who were offered genetic counseling based on NCCN guidelines. With Pearson's chi square, Fisher's Exact test, Mann-Whitney U, and multivariate regression as appropriate, individual demographic data and genetic testing completion between 2019 and 2021 were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 973 patients were reviewed. 439 were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2019 and 534 in 2021. Demographics and stage at diagnosis (p = 0.194) were similar between years. Completion of genetic testing increased from 204 (46.5%) in 2019 to 338 (63.3%) in 2021 (p < 0.01) with the universal counseling protocol. Specifically, genetic testing completion increased significantly in older patients (p = 0.041) and patients receiving Medicare benefits (p = 0.005). The overall pathogenic variants found increased from 32 to 39 with the most common including BRCA2 (n = 11), CFTR (n = 9), CHEK2 (n = 8), BRCA1 (n = 6).

CONCLUSION

Universal genetic counseling was related to a significant increase in genetic testing completion and an increase in pathogenic variants found among breast cancer patients, specifically in subpopulations which may have been previously excluded by traditional NCCN genetic testing screening guidelines.

Genomics in nephrology: identifying informatics opportunities to improve diagnosis of genetic kidney disorders using a human-centered design approach

BACKGROUND

Genomic kidney conditions often have a long lag between onset of symptoms and diagnosis. To design a real time genetic diagnosis process that meets the needs of nephrologists, we need to understand the current state, barriers, and facilitators nephrologists and other clinicians who treat kidney conditions experience, and identify areas of opportunity for improvement and innovation.

METHODS

Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with nephrologists and internists from 7 health systems. Rapid analysis identified themes in the interviews. These were used to develop service blueprints and process maps depicting the current state of genetic diagnosis of kidney disease.

RESULTS

Themes from the interviews included the importance of trustworthy resources, guidance on how to order tests, and clarity on what to do with results. Barriers included lack of knowledge, lack of access, and complexity surrounding the case and disease. Facilitators included good user experience, straightforward diagnoses, and support from colleagues.

DISCUSSION

The current state of diagnosis of kidney diseases with genetic etiology is suboptimal, with information gaps, complexity of genetic testing processes, and heterogeneity of disease impeding efficiency and leading to poor outcomes. This study highlights opportunities for improvement and innovation to address these barriers and empower nephrologists and other clinicians who treat kidney conditions to access and use real time genetic information.

Genomic multidisciplinary teams: A model for navigating genetic mainstreaming and precision medicine

AIM

Recent rapid advances in genomics are revolutionising patient diagnosis and management of genetic conditions. However, this has led to many challenges in service provision, education and upskilling requirements for non-genetics health-care professionals and remuneration for genomic testing. In Australia, Medicare funding with a Paediatric genomic testing item for patients with intellectual disability or syndromic features has attempted to address this latter issue. The Sydney Children's Hospitals Network - Westmead (SCHN-W) Clinical Genetics Department established Paediatric and Neurology genomic multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to address the Medicare-specified requirement for discussion with clinical genetics, and increasing genomic testing advice requests.

METHODS

This SCHN-W genomic MDT was evaluated with two implementation science frameworks - the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) and GMIR - Genomic Medicine Integrative Research frameworks. Data from June 2020 to July 2022 were synthesised and evaluated, as well as process mapping of the MDT service.

RESULTS

A total of 205 patients were discussed in 34 MDT meetings, facilitating 148 genomic tests, of which 73 were Medicare eligible. This was equivalent to 26% of SCHN-W genetics outpatient activity, and 13% of all Medicare-funded paediatric genomic testing in NSW. 39% of patients received a genetic diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

The genomic MDT facilitated increased genomic testing at a tertiary paediatric centre and is an effective model for mainstreaming and facilitating precision medicine. However, significant implementation issues were identified including cost and sustainability, as well as the high level of resourcing that will be required to scale up this approach to other areas of medicine.

What is the power of a genomic multidisciplinary team approach? A systematic review of implementation and sustainability

Due to the increasing complexity of genomic data interpretation, and need for close collaboration with clinical, laboratory, and research expertise, genomics often requires a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. This systematic review aims to establish the evidence for effectiveness of the genomic multidisciplinary team, and the implementation components of this model that can inform precision care. MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO databases were searched in 2022 and 2023. We included qualitative and quantitative studies of the genomic MDT, including observational and cohort studies, for diagnosis and management, and implementation outcomes of effectiveness, adoption, efficiency, safety, and acceptability. A narrative synthesis was mapped against the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework. 1530 studies were screened, and 17 papers met selection criteria. All studies pointed towards the effectiveness of the genomic MDT approach, with 10-78% diagnostic yield depending on clinical context, and an increased yield of 6-25% attributed to the MDT. The genomic MDT was found to be highly efficient in interpretation of variants of uncertain significance, timeliness for a rapid result, made a significant impact on management, and was acceptable for adoption by a wide variety of subspecialists. Only one study utilized an implementation science based approach. The genomic MDT approach appears to be highly effective and efficient, facilitating higher diagnostic rates and improved patient management. However, key gaps remain in health systems readiness for this collaborative model, and there is a lack of implementation science based research especially addressing the cost, sustainability, scale up, and equity of access.

Retrospective chart analysis to determine the impact of a patient-facing digital risk stratification tool combined with a clinical screener for hereditary cancer genetic risk assessment triage in a community oncology clinic

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of adding a clinical screener to the patient-facing digital risk stratification tool triage process for the identification of patients eligible for a genetic risk assessment for hereditary cancer. Digital risk stratification entries were retrospectively reviewed to determine the overall number of patients eligible for genetic risk assessment. These were also analyzed to determine how many patients were re-contacted by the clinical screener, and how many of those recontacted patients met criteria after their personal and family history was revised by the clinical screener. There was an 89.9% digital risk stratification triage tool completion rate, with 22.6% requiring contact from the clinical screener. Of the 640 patients who completed the digital tool, 5.9% met criteria for testing after their personal and/or family history was revised by the clinical screener. Overall, 51.1% of patients met criteria for a genetic risk assessment. The addition of a clinical screener further increased identification of patients eligible for genetic risk assessment. About half of patients who met criteria after being contacted by the clinical screener met criteria based on their personal diagnosis of cancer alone. Incorporation of a clinical screener to the digital screening process may serve to reduce barriers to patient completion of the tool and increase rates of patient identification for cancer genetic services.

Genetic testing for familial melanoma

While the average lifetime risk of melanoma worldwide is approximately 3%, those with inherited high-penetrance mutations face an increased lifetime risk of 52-84%. In countries of low melanoma incidence, such as in Southern Europe, familial melanoma genetic testing may be warranted when there are two first degree relatives with a melanoma diagnosis. Testing criteria for high incidence countries such as USA, or with very-high incidence, such as Australia and New Zealand, would require a threshold of 3 to 4 affected family members. A mutation in the most common gene associated with familial melanoma, CDKN2A, is identified in approximately 10-40% of those meeting testing criteria. However, the use of multi-gene panels covering additional less common risk genes can significantly increase the diagnostic yield. Currently, genetic testing for familial melanoma is typically conducted by qualified genetic counsellors, however with increasing demand on testing services and high incidence rate in certain countries, a mainstream model should be considered. With appropriate training, dermatologists are well placed to identify high risk individuals and offer melanoma genetic test in dermatology clinics. Genetic testing should be given in conjunction with pre- and post-test consultation. Informed patient consent should cover possible results, the limitations and implications of testing including inconclusive results, and potential for genetic discrimination. Previous studies reporting on participant outcomes of genetic testing for familial melanoma have found significant improvements in both sun protective behavior and screening frequency in mutation carriers.

A mainstreaming oncogenomics model: improving the identification of Lynch syndrome

Introduction

"Mainstreaming" is a proposed strategy to integrate genomic testing into oncology. The aim of this paper is to develop a mainstreaming oncogenomics model by identifying health system interventions and implementation strategies for mainstreaming Lynch syndrome genomic testing.

Methods

A rigorous theoretical approach inclusive of conducting a systematic review and qualitative and quantitative studies was undertaken using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Theory-informed implementation data were mapped to the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework to generate potential strategies.

Results

The systematic review identified a lack of theory-guided health system interventions and evaluation for Lynch syndrome and other mainstreaming programs. The qualitative study phase included 22 participants from 12 health organizations. The quantitative Lynch syndrome survey included 198 responses: 26% and 66% from genetic and oncology health professionals, respectively. Studies identified the relative advantage and clinical utility of mainstreaming to improve genetic test access and to streamline care, and adaptation of current processes was recognized for results delivery and follow-up. Barriers identified included funding, infrastructure and resources, and the need for process and role delineation. The interventions to overcome barriers were as follows: embedded mainstream genetic counselors, electronic medical record genetic test ordering, results tracking, and mainstreaming education resources. Implementation evidence was connected through the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework resulting in a mainstreaming oncogenomics model.

Discussion

The proposed mainstreaming oncogenomics model acts as a complex intervention. It features an adaptable suite of implementation strategies to inform Lynch syndrome and other hereditary cancer service delivery. Implementation and evaluation of the model are required in future research.

Implementing digital systems to facilitate genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: An observational study of 4 clinical workflows

PURPOSE

National efforts have prioritized the identification of effective methods for increasing case ascertainment and delivery of evidence-based health care for individuals at elevated risk for hereditary cancers.

METHODS

This study examined the uptake of genetic counseling and testing following the use of a digital cancer genetic risk assessment program implemented at 27 health care sites in 10 states using 1 of 4 clinical workflows: (1) traditional referral, (2) point-of-care scheduling, (3) point-of-care counseling/telegenetics, and (4) point-of-care testing.

RESULTS

In 2019, 102,542 patients were screened and 33,113 (32%) were identified as at high risk and meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network genetic testing criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, or both. Among those identified at high risk, 5147 (16%) proceeded with genetic testing. Genetic counseling uptake was 11% among the sites with workflows that included seeing a genetic counselor before testing, with 88% of patients proceeding with genetic testing after counseling. Uptake of genetic testing across sites varied significantly by clinical workflow (6% referral, 10% point-of-care scheduling, 14% point-of-care counseling/telegenetics, and 35% point-of-care testing, P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Study findings highlight the potential heterogeneity of effectiveness attributable to different care delivery approaches for implementing digital hereditary cancer risk screening programs.

Protocol to evaluate a pilot program to upskill clinicians in providing genetic testing for familial melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Genetic testing for hereditary cancers can improve long-term health outcomes through identifying high-risk individuals and facilitating targeted prevention and screening/surveillance. The rising demand for genetic testing exceeds the clinical genetic workforce capacity. Therefore, non-genetic specialists need to be empowered to offer genetic testing. However, it is unknown whether patient outcomes differ depending on whether genetic testing is offered by a genetics specialist or a trained non-genetics clinician. This paper describes a protocol for upskilling non-genetics clinicians to provide genetic testing, randomise high-risk individuals to receive testing from a trained clinician or a genetic counsellor, and then determine whether patient outcomes differed depending on provider-type.

METHODS

An experiential training program to upskill dermatologically-trained clinicians to offer genetic testing for familial melanoma is being piloted on 10-15 clinicians, prior to wider implementation. Training involves a workshop, comprised of a didactic learning presentation, case studies, simulated sessions, and provision of supporting documentation. Clinicians later observe a genetic counsellor led consultation before being observed leading a consultation. Both sessions are followed by debriefing with a genetic counsellor. Thereafter, clinicians independently offer genetic testing in the clinical trial. Individuals with a strong personal and/or family history of melanoma are recruited to a parallel-group trial and allocated to receive pre- and post- genetic testing consultation from a genetic counsellor, or a dermatologically-trained clinician. A mixed method approach measures psychosocial and behavioural outcomes. Longitudinal online surveys are administered at five timepoints from baseline to one year post-test disclosure. Semi-structured interviews with both patients and clinicians are qualitatively analysed.

SIGNIFICANCE

This is the first program to upskill dermatologically-trained clinicians to provide genetic testing for familial melanoma. This protocol describes the first clinical trial to compare patient-reported outcomes of genetic testing based on provider type (genetic counsellors vs trained non-genetic clinicians).

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

Background: Melanoma genetic testing reportedly increases preventative behaviour without causing psychological harm. Genetic testing for familial melanoma risk is now available, yet little is known about dermatologists’ perceptions regarding the utility of testing and genetic testing ordering behaviours.

Objectives: To survey Australasian Dermatologists on the perceived utility of genetic testing, current use in practice, as well as their confidence and preferences for the delivery of genomics education.

Methods: A 37-item survey, based on previously validated instruments, was sent to accredited members of the Australasian College of Dermatologists in March 2021. Quantitative items were analysed statistically, with one open-ended question analysed qualitatively. Results: The response rate was 56% (256/461), with 60% (153/253) of respondents between 11 and 30 years post-graduation. While 44% (112/252) of respondents agreed, or strongly agreed, that genetic testing was relevant to their practice today, relevance to future practice was reported significantly higher at 84% (212/251) (t = -9.82, p < 0.001). Ninety three percent (235/254) of respondents reported rarely or never ordering genetic testing. Dermatologists who viewed genetic testing as relevant to current practice were more likely to have discussed (p < 0.001) and/or offered testing (p < 0.001). Respondents indicated high confidence in discussing family history of melanoma, but lower confidence in ordering genetic tests and interpreting results. Eighty four percent (207/247) believed that genetic testing could negatively impact life insurance, while only 26% (63/244) were aware of the moratorium on using genetic test results in underwriting in Australia. A minority (22%, 55/254) reported prior continuing education in genetics. Face-to-face courses were the preferred learning modality for upskilling.

Conclusion: Australian Dermatologists widely recognise the relevance of genetic testing to future practice, yet few currently order genetic tests. Future educational interventions could focus on how to order appropriate genetic tests and interpret results, as well as potential implications on insurance.

From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening

Genomic medicine is expanding from a focus on diagnosis at the patient level to prevention at the population level given the ongoing under-ascertainment of high-risk and actionable genetic conditions using current strategies, particularly hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch Syndrome (LS) and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The availability of large-scale next-generation sequencing strategies and preventive options for these conditions makes it increasingly feasible to screen pre-symptomatic individuals through public health-based approaches, rather than restricting testing to high-risk groups. This raises anew, and with urgency, questions about the limits of screening as well as the moral authority and capacity to screen for genetic conditions at a population level. We aimed to answer some of these critical questions by using the WHO Wilson and Jungner criteria to guide a synthesis of current evidence on population genomic screening for HBOC, LS, and FH.

Interventions to improve delivery of cancer genetics services in the United States: A scoping review

PURPOSE

Interventions that decrease barriers and improve clinical processes can increase patient access to guideline-recommended cancer genetics services. We sought to identify and describe interventions to improve patient receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services in the United States.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 1, 2000 to February 12, 2020. Eligible articles reported interventions to improve the identification, referral, genetic counseling (GC), and genetic testing (GT) of patients in the United States. We independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full-text articles. Data were synthesized by grouping articles by clinical process.

RESULTS

Of 44 included articles, 17 targeted identification of eligible patients, 14 targeted referral, 15 targeted GC, and 16 targeted GT. Patient identification interventions included universal tumor testing and screening of medical/family history. Referral interventions included medical record system adaptations, standardizing processes, and provider notifications. GC interventions included supplemental patient education, integrated GC within oncology clinics, appointment coordination, and alternative service delivery models. One article directly targeted the GT process by implementing provider-coordinated testing.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified and described interventions to improve US patients' access to and receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services.

Views and experiences of palliative care clinicians in addressing genetics with individuals and families: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

A proportion of people with palliative care needs unknowingly have a genetic predisposition to their disease, placing relatives at increased risk. As end-of-life nears, the opportunity to address genetics for the benefit of their family narrows. Clinicians face numerous barriers addressing genetic issues, but there is limited evidence from the palliative care clinician perspective. Our aims are to (1) explore the views and experiences of palliative care clinicians in addressing genetics with patients and their families and (2) generate suggested strategies that support integration of genetics into palliative care.

METHODS

An interpretive descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with palliative care doctors and nurses (N = 14).

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: (1) Harms and benefits of raising genetics: a delicate balancing act, (2) Navigating genetic responsibility within the scope of palliative care and (3) Overcoming practice barriers: a multipronged approach. Participants described balancing the benefits of addressing genetics in palliative care against potential harms. Responsibility to address genetic issues depends on perceptions of relevance and the scope of palliative care. Suggestions to overcome practice barriers included building genetic-palliative care relationships and multi-layered genetics education, developing clinical resources and increasing organisational support.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating aspects of genetics is feasible, but must be balanced against potential harms and benefits. Palliative care clinicians were uncertain about their responsibility to navigate these complex issues to address genetics. There are opportunities to overcome barriers and tailor support to ensure people nearing end-of-life have a chance to address genetic issues for the benefit of their families.