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

Call to action for genetic counseling research in hereditary cancer: Considerations from the evidence-based guidelines development process

The National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) planned to develop an evidence-based guideline on the outcomes of genetic counseling for individuals at risk for hereditary cancer. The practice guideline workgroup used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology including ranking the importance of outcomes of genetic counseling for individuals at risk for hereditary cancer. However, due to evidence gaps in the literature, particularly the limited availability of high quality and well-designed studies for many important outcomes of genetic counseling, the NSGC identified a need for additional research prior to guideline development. Herein, we describe a "call to action" for future research, particularly for health services-related outcomes of genetic counseling in diverse populations. Identified research priorities include conducting high-quality studies that separate the outcomes of genetic counseling from genetic testing, assessing outcomes associated with pre- and/or post-test genetic counseling, measuring patient-reported and health system-reported outcomes, comparing genetic counseling by certified genetic counselors versus non-genetics-trained providers, differentiating need in various hereditary cancer indications, and identifying barriers to genetic counseling in historically excluded patient communities.

Genomic Screening at a Single Health System

Importance

Completion of the Human Genome Project prompted predictions that genomics would transform medicine, including through genomic screening that identifies potentially medically actionable findings that could prevent disease, detect it earlier, or treat it better. However, genomic screening remains anchored in research and largely unavailable as part of routine care.

Objective

To summarize 11 years of experience with genomic screening and explore the landscape of genomic screening efforts.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was based in Geisinger's MyCode Community Health Initiative, a genomic screening program in a rural Pennsylvania health care system in which patient-participants exomes are analyzed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Genomic screen-positive rates were evaluated and stratified by condition type (cancer, cardiovascular, other) and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 designation. The proportion of participants previously unaware of their genomic result was assessed. Other large-scale population-based genomic screening efforts with genomic results disclosure were compiled from public resources.

Results

A total of 354 957 patients participated in Geisinger's genomic screening program (median [IQR] age, 54 [36-69] years; 194 037 [59.7%] assigned female sex at birth). As of June 2024, 175 500 participants had exome sequencing available for analysis, and 5934 participants (3.4%) had a pathogenic variant in 81 genes known to increase risk for disease. Between 2013 and July 2024, 5119 results were disclosed to 5052 eligible participants, with 2267 (44.2%) associated with risk for cardiovascular disease, 2031 (39.7%) with risk for cancer, and 821 (16.0%) with risk for other conditions. Most results (3040 [59.4%]) were in genes outside of those with a CDC Tier 1 designation. Nearly 90% of participants (4425 [87.6%]) were unaware of their genomic risk prior to disclosure. In a survey of large-scale biobanks with genomic and electronic health record (EHR) data, only 25.0% (6 of 24) disclosed potentially actionable genomic results.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this large, genomics-informed cohort study from a single health system, 1 in 30 participants had a potentially actionable genomic finding. However, nearly 90% were unaware of their risk prior to screening, demonstrating the utility of genomic screening in identifying at-risk individuals. Most large-scale biobanks with genomic and EHR data did not return genomic results with potential medical relevance, missing opportunities to significantly improve genomic risk ascertainment for these individuals and to perform longitudinal studies of clinical and implementation outcomes in diverse settings.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed, Advanced Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide updated guidance regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) among patients with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (epithelial ovarian cancer [EOC]).

METHODS

A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and updated the systematic review.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies form the evidence base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients with suspected stage III-IV EOC should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist, with cancer antigen 125, computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis, and chest imaging included. All patients with EOC should be offered germline genetic and somatic testing at diagnosis. For patients with newly diagnosed advanced EOC who are fit for surgery and have a high likelihood of achieving complete cytoreduction, PCS is recommended. For patients fit for PCS but deemed unlikely to have complete cytoreduction, NACT is recommended. Patients with newly diagnosed advanced EOC and a high perioperative risk profile should receive NACT. Before NACT, patients should have histologic confirmation of invasive ovarian cancer. For NACT, a platinum-taxane doublet is recommended. Interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) should be performed after ≤four cycles of NACT for patients with a response to chemotherapy or stable disease. For patients with stage III disease, good performance status, and adequate renal function treated with NACT, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy may be offered during ICS. After ICS, chemotherapy should continue to complete a six-cycle treatment plan with the optional addition of bevacizumab. Patients with EOC should be offered US Food and Drug Administration-approved maintenance treatments. Patients with progressive disease on NACT should have diagnosis reconfirmed via tissue biopsy. Patients without previous comprehensive genetic or molecular profiling should be offered testing. Treatment options include alternative chemotherapy regimens, clinical trials, and/or initiation of end-of-life care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines.This guideline has been endorsed by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

Second Primary Cancer Risks After Breast Cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers

PURPOSE

Second primary cancer (SPC) risks after breast cancer (BC) in BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers are uncertain. We estimated relative and absolute risks using a novel linkage of genetic testing data to population-scale National Disease Registration Service and Hospital Episode Statistics electronic health records.

METHODS

We followed 25,811 females and 480 males diagnosed with BC and tested for germline BRCA1/BRCA2 PVs in NHS Clinical Genetics centers in England between 1995 and 2019 until SPC diagnosis, death, migration, contralateral breast/ovarian surgery plus 1 year, or the 31st of December 2020. We estimated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) using English population incidences, hazard ratios (HRs) comparing carriers to noncarriers using Cox regression, and Kaplan-Meier 10-year cumulative risks.

RESULTS

There were 1,840 BRCA1 and 1,750 BRCA2 female PV carriers. Compared with population incidences, BRCA1 carriers had elevated contralateral BC (CBC; SIR, 15.6 [95% CI, 11.8 to 20.2]), ovarian (SIR, 44.0 [95% CI, 31.4 to 59.9]), combined nonbreast/ovarian (SIR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.59 to 2.92]), colorectal (SIR, 4.80 [95% CI, 2.62 to 8.05]), and endometrial (SIR, 2.92 [95% CI, 1.07 to 6.35]) SPC risks. BRCA2 carriers had elevated CBC (SIR, 7.70 [95% CI, 5.45 to 10.6]), ovarian (SIR, 16.8 [95% CI, 10.3 to 26.0]), pancreatic (SIR, 5.42 [95% CI, 2.09 to 12.5]), and combined nonbreast/ovarian (SIR, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.24 to 2.23]) SPC risks. Compared with females without BRCA1/BRCA2 PVs on testing, BRCA1 carriers had elevated CBC (HR, 3.60 [95% CI, 2.65 to 4.90]), ovarian (HR, 33.0 [95% CI, 19.1 to 57.1]), combined nonbreast/ovarian (HR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.01]), and colorectal (HR, 2.93 [95% CI, 1.53 to 5.62]) SPC risks. BRCA2 carriers had elevated CBC (HR, 2.40 [95% CI, 1.70 to 3.40]), ovarian (HR, 12.0 [95% CI, 6.70 to 21.5]), and pancreatic (HR, 3.56 [95% CI, 1.34 to 9.48]) SPC risks. Ten-year cumulative CBC, ovarian, and combined nonbreast/ovarian cancer risks were 16%/6.3%/7.8% (BRCA1 carriers), 12%/3.0%/6.2% (BRCA2 carriers), and 3.6%/0.4%/4.9% (noncarriers). Male BRCA2 carriers had higher CBC (HR, 13.1 [95% CI, 1.19 to 146]) and prostate (HR, 5.61 [95% CI, 1.96 to 16.0]) SPC risks than noncarriers.

CONCLUSION

Survivors of BC carrying BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs are at high SPC risk. They may benefit from enhanced surveillance and risk-reduction measures.

Incorporating Structured and Unstructured Data Sources to Identify and Characterize Hereditary Cancer Testing Among Veterans With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

This study introduces an integrated approach using structured and unstructured data from an electronic health record to identify and characterize patient utilization of hereditary cancer genetic testing among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Secondary objectives were to describe factors associated with the receipt of testing.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included a cohort of Veterans diagnosed with mCRPC from January 2016 to December 2021. Receipt of genetic testing was identified using structured and unstructured data. Time to testing, age at testing, and testing rate were analyzed. Sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with receipt of hereditary cancer genetic testing were identified including race, marital status, rurality, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and genetic counseling.

RESULTS

Among 9,703 Veterans with mCRPC who did not decline testing, 16% received genetic testing, with nearly half of the tests occurring in 2020-2021. Factors positively associated with genetic testing included receipt of genetic counseling (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 11.07 [95% CI, 3.66 to 33.51]), enrollment in clinical trial (aOR, 7.42 [95% CI, 5.59 to 9.84]), and treatment at a Prostate Cancer Foundation-Veterans Affairs Center of Excellence (aOR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.95]). Negative associations included older age (aOR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.93 to 0.97]) and severe CCI score (aOR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94]). Trends revealed that time to testing decreased per diagnosis year while median age at testing increased per year.

CONCLUSION

Although testing rates are still suboptimal, they have increased steadily since 2016. Educating Veterans about the benefits of genetic testing may further improve testing rates.

Homologous recombination deficiency in ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma by self-reported race

Background

Approximately half of ovarian high-grade serous carcinomas (HGSC) have homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). However, HRD is not well-characterized in Black individuals.

Objective

To characterize HGSC HRD by self-reported race and evaluate whether differences in HRD are associated with ovarian cancer mortality.

Study population

Cohort study using data collected from two population-based case-control studies of ovarian cancer. Cases were selected based on self-reported race (178 Black, 123 White) and pathologically-confirmed HGSC.

Exposures

HRD features identified using matched tumor-normal whole-exome DNA sequencing and categorized as germline or somatic variants in homologous recombination pathway genes, or the SBS3 HRD-associated signature.

Outcomes

Median difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for age at diagnosis and tumor mutation burden, and age and stage-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95%CIs for survival, comparing individuals with an HRD feature to those without, separately by self-reported race.

Results

More of the germline and somatic variants detected among Black individuals compared with White individuals were unannotated or variants of uncertain significance (VUS; germline 65% versus 45%; somatic 62% versus 50%, respectively). While the prevalences of many HRD features were similar between Black individuals and White individuals, Black individuals had a higher prevalence of the HRD signature identified using de novo mutational signature analysis (40% versus 29%) and germline BRCA2 variants (8% versus 2%) compared with White individuals. We observed that among Black individuals, BRCA2 variants were associated with better survival (somatic HR=0.23, 95%CI 0.07-0.76; germline HR=0.48, 95%CI 0.22-1.03), while germline BRCA1 variants were associated with worse survival (HR=2.11, 95%CI 1.14-3.88). When we restricted to VUS and unannotated variants, we observed similar associations with survival for BRCA2 among Black individuals (somatic HR=0.18, 95%CI 0.04-0.75; germline HR=0.40, 95%CI 0.15-1.09).

Conclusions and Relevance

HRD testing informs precision-based medicine approaches that improve outcomes, but a higher proportion of VUS among Black individuals may complicate referral for such care. Our findings emphasize the importance of recruiting diverse individuals in genomics research and better characterizing VUS.

Racial and sociodemographic disparities in the use of targeted therapies in advanced ovarian cancer patients with Medicare

OBJECTIVE

To describe sociodemographic and racial disparities in receipt of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and bevacizumab among insured patients with ovarian cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database to identify patients with advanced stage, high grade serous ovarian cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. The primary outcome of interest was receipt of PARPi or bevacizumab at any time after diagnosis. χ2 tests were used to compare categorical variables. Factors independently associated with the receipt of PARPi and/or bevacizumab were identified using a multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The cohort included 6242 patients; 276 (4.4%) received PARPi, 2142 (34.3%) received bevacizumab, and 389 (6.2%) received both. Receipt of either targeted treatment increased over the study period. On univariate analysis, patients who received either targeted therapy were younger (63% vs 48% aged <75 years; p<0.001), had a lower comorbidity index (86% vs 80% Charlson Comorbidity Index 0-1; p<0.001), and higher socioeconomic status (74% vs 71% high socioeconomic status; p=0.047) compared with those who did not receive targeted therapy. In the multivariable model, non-Hispanic black patients were less likely than non-Hispanic white patients to receive either targeted therapy (odds ratio 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.98; p=0.032). Older patients (aged >74 years) were also less likely to receive PARPi or bevacizumab compared with those aged 65-69 years (all p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Sociodemographic and racial disparities exist in receipt of PARPi and bevacizumab among patients with advanced ovarian cancer insured by Medicare. As targeted therapies become more commonly used, a widening disparity gap is likely.

Commentary: Why is genetic testing underutilized worldwide? The case for hereditary breast cancer

It is thirty years since the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were discovered and genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 was introduced. Despite increasing awareness of the genetic basis of cancer and our evolving knowledge of effective means of prevention, screening, and treatment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers, genetic testing is underutilized, and most mutation carriers remain unidentified. In this commentary, we explore possible reasons for why this might be so. Our focus is on factors that may influence or deter a patient from pursuing testing, rather than discussing the implications of receiving a positive test result. Issues of concern include an inadequate number of genetic counselors, restrictive (and conflicting) eligibility criteria for testing, the cost of the test, health insurance coverage, fear of future insurance discrimination, privacy issues, lack of familiarity with the testing process in primary care and gaps in both patient and provider knowledge about the impact and the value of testing. We discuss how these factors may lead to the underutilization of genetic testing in North America and throughout the world and discuss alternative models of genetic healthcare delivery. We have invited leaders in cancer genetic from around the world to tell us what they think are the barriers to testing in their host countries.

Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics Associated with Genetic Testing among Cancer Survivors: Evidence from Three Cancer Registries

INTRODUCTION

Genetic tests, including germline and tumor (somatic) testing, can optimize the clinical care and outcomes for cancer patients and their family members. However, evidence on cancer patients' use of genetic testing and discussions about it with healthcare providers is limited.

METHODS

Study participants included cancer survivors aged 18 or older, drawn from the 2021 Health Information and National Trends Survey (HINTS)-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) linked database, which comprises three US cancer registries: Iowa, New Mexico, and the Greater Bay Area. Sociodemographic factors (e.g., age, sex, income, education) at the time of the survey and clinical characteristics (e.g., cancer site, stage) at the time of diagnosis were compared based on self-reported genetic testing status and provider discussions, using survey design-adjusted analysis.

RESULTS

The weighted study sample comprised 415,978 cancer survivors with a mean age of 70.5 years at the time of the survey. Overall, 17.0% reported having germline testing, 8.5% having tumor testing, and 8.6% discussing tumor testing with their healthcare providers. Higher proportions of germline genetic testing were observed among survivors under age 65 at the time of the survey, females, holding college degrees, and with private insurance coverage compared to their respective counterparts - males, aged 65 or above when surveyed, with lower educational attainment, and with public insurance or uninsured. The proportion of those who reported tumor testing was greater for those diagnosed in recent years (2015-2017 vs. before 2002). Regarding clinical characteristics, survivors with ovarian and breast cancers had a 7.0-36.4% higher prevalence of both testing compared to those with other cancer types lacking germline indication. More cancer survivors diagnosed at distant stages (vs. regional) or between 2015 and 2017 (vs. 2003-2010) reported having provider discussions about tumor testing.

CONCLUSION

Findings showed that the highest reports of germline testing were among young female cancer survivors and those with higher education and private insurance. Survivors diagnosed in recent years or with advanced-stage disease were more likely to report discussing tumor testing with providers. Further research is warranted to better understand the barriers and educational needs of cancer patients, caregivers, and providers to optimize genetic testing strategies.

Disparate Rates of Germline Variants in Cancer Predisposition Genes in African American/Black Compared With Non-Hispanic White Individuals Between 2015 and 2022

PURPOSE

African American/Black (AA/B) individuals are under-represented in genomic databases and thus less likely to receive definitive information from germline genetic testing (GGT) than non-Hispanic White (NHW) individuals. With nearly 500,000 AA/B and NHW individuals having undergone multigene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer risk at a single commercial laboratory, to our knowledge, we present the largest study to date investigating cancer GGT results in AA/B and NHW individuals.

METHODS

MGPT results from a retrospective cohort of AA/B (n = 48,684) and NHW (n = 444,831) patients were evaluated. Frequencies of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were compared between AA/B and NHW individuals. Changes in frequency of VUS over time were determined. Pearson's chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables among groups. All significance tests were two-tailed, and P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2022, rates of VUS decreased 2.3-fold in AA/B and 1.8-fold in NHW individuals; however, frequencies of VUS and PGV remained significantly higher (46% v 32%; P < .0001) and lower (9% v 13%; P < .0001) in AA/B compared with NHW individuals. Rates of VUS in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and PMS2 were significantly higher in AA/B compared with NHW individuals, whereas rates of PGV in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 were higher in AA/B compared with NHW individuals (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Despite reductions in VUS frequencies over time, disparities in definitive GGT results persist. Increasing inclusion of AA/B populations in both testing and research will further increase knowledge of genetic variants across these racial groups.

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.

Young Women's Perspectives on Being Screened for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk During Routine Primary Care

PURPOSE

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening women to identify individuals eligible for genetic counseling based on a priori hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) risk (i.e., risk assessment). However, risk assessment has not been widely integrated into primary care. This qualitative study explored young women's views on implementing routine HBOC risk assessment with a focus on equity and patient-centeredness.

METHODS

We conducted group discussions with young women (aged 21-40 years) receiving care in an integrated health care system. Discussion groups occurred in two phases and used a modified deliberative approach that included a didactic component and prioritized developing consensus. Twenty women participated in one of three initial small group discussions (phase one). All 20 were invited to participate in a subsequent large group discussion (phase two), and 15 of them attended.

FINDINGS

Key themes and recommendations were as follows. Risk assessment should be accessible, contextualized, and destigmatized to encourage participation and reduce anxiety, particularly for women who do not know their family history. Providers conducting risk assessments must be equipped to address women's informational needs, relieve emotionality, and plan next steps after positive screens. Finally, to minimize differential screening uptake, health care systems must prioritize equity in program design and contribute to external educational and outreach efforts.

CONCLUSION

Young women see pragmatic opportunities for health systems to optimize HBOC screening implementation.

Racial Differences in Germline Genetic Testing Completion Among Males With Pancreatic, Breast, or Metastatic Prostate Cancers

BACKGROUND

Germline genetic testing is a vital component of guideline-recommended cancer care for males with pancreatic, breast, or metastatic prostate cancers. We sought to determine whether there were racial disparities in germline genetic testing completion in this population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included non-Hispanic White and Black males with incident pancreatic, breast, or metastatic prostate cancers between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021. Two nationwide cohorts were examined: (1) commercially insured individuals in an administrative claims database, and (2) Veterans receiving care in the Veterans Health Administration. One-year germline genetic testing rates were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to test the association between race and genetic testing completion. Causal mediation analyses were performed to investigate whether socioeconomic variables contributed to associations between race and germline testing.

RESULTS

Our cohort consisted of 7,894 males (5,142 commercially insured; 2,752 Veterans). One-year testing rates were 18.0% (95% CI, 16.8%-19.2%) in commercially insured individuals and 14.2% (95% CI, 11.5%-15.0%) in Veterans. Black race was associated with a lower hazard of testing among commercially insured individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.91; P=.005) but not among Veterans (aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.75-1.32; P=.960). In commercially insured individuals, income (aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96) and net worth (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98) mediated racial disparities, whereas education (aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94-1.01) did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall rates of guideline-recommended genetic testing are low in males with pancreatic, breast, or metastatic prostate cancers. Racial disparities in genetic testing among males exist in a commercially insured population, mediated by net worth and household income; these disparities are not seen in the equal-access Veterans Health Administration. Alleviating financial and access barriers may mitigate racial disparities in genetic testing.

Germline and somatic testing for ovarian Cancer: An SGO clinical practice statement

Germline and somatic genetic testing have become critical components of care for people with ovarian cancer. The identification of germline and somatic pathogenic variants as well as homologous recombination deficiency can contribute to the prediction of treatment response, prognostic outcome, and suitability for targeted agents (e.g. poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors). Furthermore, identifying germline pathogenic variants can prompt cascade genetic testing for at-risk relatives. Despite the clinical benefits and consensus recommendations from several organizations calling for universal genetic testing in ovarian cancer, only about one third of patients complete germline or somatic genetic testing. The members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Clinical Practice Committee have composed this statement to provide an overview of germline and somatic genetic testing for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, focusing on available testing modalities and options for care delivery.

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.