What characterizes cancer family history collection tools? A critical literature review

Risk for Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes in Women with Mismatch Repair-Proficient Endometrial Cancer

Endometrial cancer (EC) is a prevalent malignancy in women, and those who are proficient in the DNA mismatch repair (pMMR) pathway may have a family history (FH) that meets the criteria for a hereditary neoplastic condition (HNS). This study aimed to estimate the risk of HNS in women with pMMR endometrial tumors by analyzing their FH. To achieve this, we collaborated with a primary study and collected FH information by telephone. The final sample comprised 42 women who responded to the Primary Screening Questionnaire. Their family pedigrees were drawn and categorized according to internationally standardized criteria for the risk of HNS. Results showed that 26 women (61%) were found to be at risk for HNS, with Bethesda criteria being met by 23%, Amsterdam criteria by 15%, and 4% met the attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis criteria. Our results emphasize the importance of FH and the need to encourage healthcare professionals to collect and document FH more frequently, even if it is self-reported. By identifying individuals with HNS, we can improve their outcomes and reduce the burden of cancer in families with a predisposition to cancer.

Exploring the barriers to and facilitators of implementing CanRisk in primary care: a qualitative thematic framework analysis

BACKGROUND

The CanRisk tool enables the collection of risk factor information and calculation of estimated future breast cancer risks based on the multifactorial Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) model. Despite BOADICEA being recommended in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and CanRisk being freely available for use, the CanRisk tool has not yet been widely implemented in primary care.

AIM

To explore the barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of the CanRisk tool in primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A multi-methods study was conducted with primary care practitioners (PCPs) in the East of England.

METHOD

Participants used the CanRisk tool to complete two vignette-based case studies; semi-structured interviews gained feedback about the tool; and questionnaires collected demographic details and information about the structural characteristics of the practices.

RESULTS

Sixteen PCPs (eight GPs and eight nurses) completed the study. The main barriers to implementation included: time needed to complete the tool; competing priorities; IT infrastructure; and PCPs' lack of confidence and knowledge to use the tool. Main facilitators included: easy navigation of the tool; its potential clinical impact; and the increasing availability of and expectation to use risk prediction tools.

CONCLUSION

There is now a greater understanding of the barriers and facilitators that exist when using CanRisk in primary care. The study has highlighted that future implementation activities should focus on reducing the time needed to complete a CanRisk calculation, integrating the CanRisk tool into existing IT infrastructure, and identifying appropriate contexts in which to conduct a CanRisk calculation. PCPs may also benefit from information about cancer risk assessment and CanRisk-specific training.

Association of Disparities in Family History and Family Cancer History in the Electronic Health Record With Sex, Race, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, and Language Preference in 2 Large US Health Care Systems

IMPORTANCE

Clinical decision support (CDS) algorithms are increasingly being implemented in health care systems to identify patients for specialty care. However, systematic differences in missingness of electronic health record (EHR) data may lead to disparities in identification by CDS algorithms.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the availability and comprehensiveness of cancer family history information (FHI) in patients' EHRs by sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and language preference in 2 large health care systems in 2021.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective EHR quality improvement study used EHR data from 2 health care systems: University of Utah Health (UHealth) and NYU Langone Health (NYULH). Participants included patients aged 25 to 60 years who had a primary care appointment in the previous 3 years. Data were collected or abstracted from the EHR from December 10, 2020, to October 31, 2021, and analyzed from June 15 to October 31, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Prior collection of cancer FHI in primary care settings.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Availability was defined as having any FHI and any cancer FHI in the EHR and was examined at the patient level. Comprehensiveness was defined as whether a cancer family history observation in the EHR specified the type of cancer diagnosed in a family member, the relationship of the family member to the patient, and the age at onset for the family member and was examined at the observation level.

RESULTS

Among 144 484 patients in the UHealth system, 53.6% were women; 74.4% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino and 67.6% were White; and 83.0% had an English language preference. Among 377 621 patients in the NYULH system, 55.3% were women; 63.2% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino, and 55.3% were White; and 89.9% had an English language preference. Patients from historically medically undeserved groups-specifically, Black vs White patients (UHealth: 17.3% [95% CI, 16.1%-18.6%] vs 42.8% [95% CI, 42.5%-43.1%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.0%-24.8%] vs 33.8% [95% CI, 33.6%-34.0%]), Hispanic or Latino vs non-Hispanic or non-Latino patients (UHealth: 27.2% [95% CI, 26.5%-27.8%] vs 40.2% [95% CI, 39.9%-40.5%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.1%-24.7%] vs 31.6% [95% CI, 31.4%-31.8%]), Spanish-speaking vs English-speaking patients (UHealth: 18.4% [95% CI, 17.2%-19.1%] vs 40.0% [95% CI, 39.7%-40.3%]; NYULH: 15.1% [95% CI, 14.6%-15.6%] vs 31.1% [95% CI, 30.9%-31.2%), and men vs women (UHealth: 30.8% [95% CI, 30.4%-31.2%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 42.6%-43.3%]; NYULH: 23.1% [95% CI, 22.9%-23.3%] vs 34.9% [95% CI, 34.7%-35.1%])-had significantly lower availability and comprehensiveness of cancer FHI (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that systematic differences in the availability and comprehensiveness of FHI in the EHR may introduce informative presence bias as inputs to CDS algorithms. The observed differences may also exacerbate disparities for medically underserved groups. System-, clinician-, and patient-level efforts are needed to improve the collection of FHI.

Environmental scan of family chart linking for genetic cascade screening in a U.S. integrated health system

Background: An alternative to population-based genetic testing, automated cascade genetic testing facilitated by sharing of family health history, has been conceptualized as a more efficient and cost-effective approach to identify hereditary genetic conditions. However, existing software and applications programming interfaces (API) for the practical implementation of this approach in health care settings have not been described.

Methods: We reviewed API available for facilitating cascade genetic testing in electronic health records (EHRs). We emphasize any information regarding informed consent as provided for each tool. Using semi-structured key informant interviews, we investigated uptake of and barriers to integrating automated family cascade genetic testing into the EHR.

Results: We summarized the functionalities of six tools related to utilizing family health history to facilitate cascade genetic testing. No tools were explicitly capable of facilitating family cascade genetic testing, but few enterprise EHRs supported family health history linkage. We conducted five key informant interviews with four main considerations that emerged including: 1) incentives for interoperability, 2) HIPAA and regulations, 3) mobile-app and alternatives to EHR deployment, 4) fundamental changes to conceptualizing EHRs.

Discussion: Despite the capabilities of existing technology, limited bioinformatic support has been developed to automate processes needed for family cascade genetic testing and the main barriers for implementation are nontechnical, including an understanding of regulations, consent, and workflow. As the trade-off between cost and efficiency for population-based and family cascade genetic testing shifts, the additional tools necessary for their implementation should be considered.

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.

Prevalence of Americans reporting a family history of cancer indicative of increased cancer risk: Estimates from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey

The collection and evaluation of family health history in a clinical setting presents an opportunity to discuss cancer risk, tailor cancer screening recommendations, and identify people with an increased risk of carrying a pathogenic variant who may benefit from referral to genetic counseling and testing. National recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer screening indicate that men and women who have a first-degree relative affected with these types of cancers may benefit from talking to a healthcare provider about starting screening at an earlier age and other options for cancer prevention. The prevalence of reporting a first-degree relative who had cancer was assessed among adult respondents of the 2015 National Health Interview Survey who had never had cancer themselves (n = 27,999). We found 35.6% of adults reported having at least one first-degree relative with cancer at any site. Significant differences in reporting a family history of cancer were observed by sex, age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and census region. Nearly 5% of women under age 50 and 2.5% of adults under age 50 had at least one first-degree relative with breast cancer or colorectal cancer, respectively. We estimated that 5.8% of women had a family history of breast or ovarian cancer that may indicate increased genetic risk. A third of U.S. adults who have never had cancer report a family history of cancer in a first-degree relative. This finding underscores the importance of using family history to inform discussions about cancer risk and screening options between healthcare providers and their patients.

Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review

Background

Many medical family history (FH) tools are available for various settings. Although FH tools can be a powerful health screening tool in primary care (PC), they are currently underused.

Objectives

This review explores the FH tools currently available for PC and evaluates their clinical performance.

Methods

Five databases were systematically searched until May 2021. Identified tools were evaluated on the following criteria: time-to-complete, integration with electronic health record (EMR) systems, patient administration, risk-assessment ability, evidence-based management recommendations, analytical and clinical validity and clinical utility.

Results

We identified 26 PC FH tools. Analytical and clinical validity was poorly reported and agreement between FH and gold standard was commonly inadequately reported and assessed. Sensitivity was acceptable; specificity was found in half of the reviewed tools to be poor. Most reviewed tools showed a capacity to successfully identify individuals with increased risk of disease (6.2–84.6% of high and/or moderate or increased risk individuals).

Conclusion

Despite the potential of FH tools to improve risk stratification of patients in PC, clinical performance of current tools remains limited as well as their integration in EMR systems. Twenty-one FH tools are designed to be self-administered by patients.

Predicting breast cancer risk in a racially diverse, community-based sample of potentially high-risk women

BACKGROUND

Identifying women with high risk of breast cancer is necessary to study high-risk experiences and deliver risk-management care. Risk prediction models estimate individuals' lifetime risk but have rarely been applied in community-based settings among women not yet receiving specialized care. Therefore, we aimed: (1) to apply three breast cancer risk prediction models (i.e., Gail, Claus, and IBIS) to a racially diverse, community-based sample of women, and (2) to assess risk prediction estimates using survey data.

METHODS

An online survey was administered to women who were determined by a screening instrument to have potentially high risk for breast cancer. Risk prediction models were applied using their self-reported family and medical history information. Inclusion in the high-risk subsample required ≥20% lifetime risk per ≥1 model. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the proportions of women identified as high risk by each model.

RESULTS

N = 1053 women were initially eligible and completed the survey. All women, except one, self-reported the information necessary to run at least one model; 90% had sufficient information for >1 model. The high-risk subsample included 717 women, of which 75% were identified by one model only; 96% were identified by IBIS, 3% by Claus, <1% by Gail. In the high-risk subsample, 20% were identified by two models and 3% by all three models.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing breast cancer risk using self-reported data in a community-based sample was feasible. Different models identify substantially different groups of women who may be at high risk for breast cancer; use of multiple models may be beneficial for research and clinical care.

Determination of test performance of two contemporary screening tests for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer: A clinical trial

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Published data on the performance of the immunohistochemistry (IHC) test for mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression to detect Lynch syndrome (LS) index cases suggests it is highly variable; its performance in our system was unknown. Moreover, a brief family history questionnaire (bFHQ) developed by Eiriksson and colleagues in Canada demonstrated 100% sensitivity for LS case identification thus was of interest to us, but its performance outside of its original setting was unknown. Determination of the performance of these tests requires complete LS case identification in the testing population.

METHODS

Two hundred women were recruited during routine care for endometrial cancer (EC) to administer the bFHQ and perform genetic testing for the LS genes. Independently, the IHC test was performed to screen for presumptive LS cases. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the bFHQ and IHC test as well as simulating outcomes of the complete protocols.

RESULTS

Genetic testing all participants identified 8 cases of LS out of 200 (4% prevalence), the bFHQ identified 5 of 8 of these cases (62.5%, CI: 31.5%-87.6%), and the IHC test identified 6 or 7 of 8 cases (mean of 75% or 87.5%) depending on interpretation of test results. The specificities of the bFHQ and IHC test were 56.8% (CI: 49.8%-63.7%) and 79.8% (CI: 73.6%-85.1%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first, to our knowledge, to test the effectiveness of the bFHQ in an EC population since its original reporting; our results are consistent with many reports of the challenges of collecting family health history. The performance of the IHC test as a screen falls within ranges reported in the literature but do not provide the confidence to drive a decision for or against continued use of this test as a LS screen.

How is family health history discussed in routine primary healthcare? A qualitative study of archived family doctor consultations

OBJECTIVES

Family health history underpins genetic medicine. Our study aimed to explore language and patterns of communication relating to family health history observed in interactions between general practitioners (GPs) and their patients within routine primary care consultations.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of patient and GP routine consultation data (n=252).

PARTICIPANTS

Consultations that included 'family health history' were eligible for inclusion (n=58).

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

A qualitative inductive analysis of the interactions from consultation transcripts.

RESULTS

46/58 conversations about family health history were initiated by the GP. Most discussions around family history lasted for between approximately 1 to 2 min. Patients were invited to share family health history through one of two ways: non-specific enquiry (eg, by asking the patient about 'anything that runs in the family'); or specific enquiry where they were asked if they had a 'strong family history' in relation to a particular condition, for example, breast cancer. Patients often responded to either approach with a simple no, but fuller negative responses also occurred regularly and typically included an account of some kind (eg, explaining family relationships/dynamics which impeded or prevented the accessibility of information).

CONCLUSIONS

Family health history is regarded as a genetic test and is embedded in the sociocultural norms of the patient from whom information is being sought. Our findings highlight that it is more complex than asking simply if 'anything' runs in the family. As the collection of family health history is expected to be more routine, it will be important to also consider it from sociocultural perspectives in order to help mitigate any inequities in how family history is collected, and therefore used (or not) in a person's healthcare. Orientating an enquiry away from 'anything' and asking more specific details about particular conditions may help facilitate the dialogue.

High-burden Cancers in Middle-income Countries: A Review of Prevention and Early Detection Strategies Targeting At-risk Populations

Cancer incidence is rising in low- and especially middle-income countries (MIC), driven primarily by four high-burden cancers (breast, cervix, lung, colorectal). By 2030, more than two-thirds of all cancer deaths will occur in MICs. Prevention and early detection are required alongside efforts to improve access to cancer treatment. Successful strategies for decreasing cancer mortality in high-income countries are not always effective, feasible or affordable in other countries. In this review, we evaluate strategies for prevention and early detection of breast, cervix, lung, and colorectal cancers, focusing on modifiable risk factors and high-risk subpopulations. Tobacco taxation, human papilloma virus vaccination, cervical cancer screen-and-treat strategies, and efforts to reduce patient and health system-related delays in the early detection of breast and colorectal cancer represent the highest yield strategies for advancing cancer control in many MICs. An initial focus on high-risk populations is appropriate, with increasing population coverage as resources allow. These strategies can deliver significant cancer mortality gains, and serve as a foundation from which countries can develop comprehensive cancer control programs. Investment in national cancer surveillance infrastructure is needed; the absence of national cancer data to identify at-risk groups remains a barrier to the development of context-specific cancer control strategies.

Leveraging Health Information Technology to Collect Family Cancer History: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Collection of family cancer histories (FCHs) can identify individuals at risk for familial cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the literature on existing strategies whereby providers use information technology to assemble FCH.

METHODS

A systematic search of online databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase) between 1980 and 2020 was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed through the chi-square test (ie, Cochrane Q test) and the inconsistency statistic (I²). A random-effects analysis was used to calculate the pooled proportions and means.

RESULTS

The comprehensive search produced 4,005 publications. Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven information technology tools were evaluated. Eighteen out of 28 studies were electronic surveys administered before visits (18, 64.3%). Five studies administered tablet surveys in offices (5, 17.8%). Four studies collected electronic survey via kiosk before visits (4, 14.3%), and one study used animated virtual counselor during visits (1, 3.6%). Among the studies that use an FCH tool, the pooled estimate of the overall completion rate was 86% (CI, 72% to 96%), 84% (CI, 65% to 97%) for electronic surveys before visits, 89% (CI, 0.74 to 0.98) for tablet surveys, and 85% (CI, 0.66 to 0.98) for surveys via kiosk. Mean time required for completion was 31.0 minutes (CI, 26.1 to 35.9), and the pooled estimate of proportions of participants referred to genetic testing was 12% (CI, 4% to 23%).

CONCLUSION

Our review found that electronic FCH collection can be completed successfully by patients in a time-efficient manner with high rates of satisfaction.

Adaptation and early implementation of the PREdiction model for gene mutations (PREMM5™) for lynch syndrome risk assessment in a diverse population

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common inherited cause of colorectal and endometrial cancers. Identifying individuals at risk for LS without personal cancer history requires detailed collection and assessment of family health history. However, barriers exist to family health history collection, especially in historically underserved populations. To improve LS risk assessment in historically underserved populations, we adapted the provider-facing PREdiction Model for gene Mutations (PREMM₅™ model), a validated LS risk assessment model, into a patient-facing electronic application through an iterative development process involving expert and patient stakeholders. We report on preliminary findings based on the first 500 individuals exposed to the adapted application in a primary care population enriched for low-literacy and low-resource patients. Major adaptations to the PREMM₅™ provider module included reduction in reading level, addition of interactive literacy aids, incorporation of family history assessment for both maternal and paternal sides of the family, and inclusion of questions about individual relatives or small groups of relatives to reduce cognitive burden. In the first 500 individuals, 90% completed the PREMM₅™ independently; of those, 94% did so in 5 min or less (ranged from 0.2 to 48.8 min). The patient-facing application was able to accurately classify 84% of patients as having clinically significant or not clinically significant LS risk. Our preliminary results suggest that in this diverse study population, most participants were able to rapidly, accurately, and independently complete an interactive application collecting family health history assessment that accurately assessed for Lynch syndrome risk.

The Importance of Cancer Screening

The burden of cancer in the United States is substantial, providing important opportunity and obligation for primary care clinicians to promote cancer prevention and early detection. Without a system of organized screening to support reminders and follow-up of cancer screening, primary care clinicians face challenges in addressing risk assessment, informed/shared decision making, reminders for screening, and tracking adherence to screening recommendations. Tools exist for collecting information about family history, tracking screening adherence, and reminding patients when they are due for screening, and strategies exist for making cancer prevention and early detection an office policy and delegating roles and responsibilities to office staff.

The enduring importance of family health history in the era of genomic medicine and risk assessment

Improving disease risk prediction and tailoring preventive interventions to patient risk factors is one of the primary goals of precision medicine. Family health history is the traditional approach to quickly gather genetic and environmental data relevant to the patient. While the utility of family health history is well-documented, its utilization is variable, in part due to lack of patient and provider knowledge and incomplete or inaccurate data. With the advances and reduced costs of sequencing technologies, comprehensive sequencing tests can be performed as a risk assessment tool. We provide an overview of each of these risk assessment approaches, the benefits and limitations and implementation challenges.

Effectiveness of interventions to identify and manage patients with familial cancer risk in primary care: a systematic review

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of strategies to identify and manage patients with familial risk of breast, ovarian, colorectal and prostate cancer in primary care to improve clinical outcomes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were searched from January 1980 to October 2017. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI). Primary outcomes were cancer incidence, cancer-related clinical outcomes or the identification of cancer predisposition; secondary outcomes were the appropriateness of referral, uptake of preventive strategies and cognitive and psychological effect. From 11,842 abstracts, 111 full texts were reviewed and three eligible studies (nine articles) identified. Two were cluster RCTs and one NRSI; all used risk assessment software. No studies identified our primary outcomes, with no consistent outcome across the three studies. In one RCT, intervention improved the proportion of genetic referrals meeting referral guidelines for breast cancer (OR 4.5, 95% CI 1.6 to 13.1). In the other RCT, there was no difference in screening adherence between the intervention and control group. However, there was borderline increased risk perception (OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.59) in the subgroup that under-estimated their colon cancer risk. In the NRSI, there was no change in psychological distress in patients at increased familial breast cancer risk, but population risk patients had reduced anxiety after intervention (state anxiety mean change - 3, 95% CI - 5 to - 2). Future studies should have better-defined comparator groups and longer follow-up and assess outcomes using validated tools.

What do cancer patients' relatives think about addressing cancer family history and performing genetic testing in palliative care?

Palliative care may be an opportunity to discuss cancer family history and familial cancer risks with patients' relatives. It may also represent the last opportunity to collect, from dying patients, clinical data and biospecimens that will inform cancer risk assessment and prevention in their surviving relatives. This study aims to explore the perspectives of cancer patients' relatives about cancer heritability, addressing cancer family history, and performing genetic testing in palliative care settings. Thirteen first-degree relatives of cancer patients who died in palliative care participated in the study. Two focus groups were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Two independent coders conducted a thematic content analysis. The themes included: (1) Knowledge of cancer heritability; (2) Experiences and expectations regarding cancer family history discussions, and (3) Views on genetic testing in palliative care patients and DNA biobanking. Participants seemed aware that cancer family history is a potential risk factor for developing the disease. They considered the palliative care period an inappropriate moment to discuss cancer heritability. They also did not consider palliative care providers as appropriate resources to consult for such matters as they are not specialized in this field. Participants welcomed DNA biobanking and genetic testing conducted at the palliative care patients' request. Cancer occurrence within families raises concerns among relatives about cancer heritability, but the palliative care period is not considered the most appropriate moment to address this issue. However, discussions about the risk to cancer patients' relatives might need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Family health history: underused for actionable risk assessment

Family health history (FHH) is the most useful means of assessing risk for common chronic diseases. The odds ratio for risk of developing disease with a positive FHH is frequently greater than 2, and actions can be taken to mitigate risk by adhering to screening guidelines, genetic counselling, genetic risk testing, and other screening methods. Challenges to the routine acquisition of FHH include constraints on provider time to collect data and the difficulty in accessing risk calculators. Disease-specific and broader risk assessment software platforms have been developed, many with clinical decision support and informatics interoperability, but few access patient information directly. Software that allows integration of FHH with the electronic medical record and clinical decision support capabilities has provided solutions to many of these challenges. Patient facing, electronic medical record, and web-enabled FHH platforms have been developed, and can provide greater identification of risk compared with conventional FHH ascertainment in primary care. FHH, along with cascade screening, can be an important component of population health management approaches to overall reduction of risk.