Cancer Genetic Counseling and Testing: Perspectives of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients and Gynecologic Oncology Healthcare Providers

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.

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.

Reflex BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumour genetic testing for high-grade serous ovarian cancer: streamlined for clinicians but what do patients think?

BACKGROUND

Reflex (automatic) BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic testing of tumour tissue is being completed for all newly diagnosed high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) in the province of Ontario, Canada. The objective of this study was to measure the psychological impact of tumour genetic testing among individuals with a new diagnosis of HGSOC.

METHODS

Participants had a new diagnosis of HGSOC and received reflex BRCA1/2 tumour genetic testing as a component of their care. Eligible individuals were recruited from two oncology centres in Toronto, Canada. One week after disclosure of tumour genetic test results, consenting participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that measured cancer-related distress, dispositional optimism, knowledge of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer, recall of tumour genetic test results, satisfaction, and the psychological impact of receiving tumour genetic test results. The Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire was used to measure the psychological impact of tumour genetic testing.

RESULTS

76 individuals completed the study survey; 13 said they did not receive their tumour test results. Of the remaining 63 participants, the average MICRA score was 26.8 (SD = 16.3). Higher total MICRA scores were seen among those with children (p = 0.02), who received treatment with primary surgery (p = 0.02), and had higher reported cancer-related distress (p < 0.001). Higher dispositional optimism (p < 0.001) and increasing age (p = 0.03) were associated with lower total MICRA scores. Most (83.5%) participants reported being satisfied/highly satisfied with having tumour testing completed; however, 40.8% could not accurately recall their tumor test results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to assess psychological outcomes following reflex BRCA1/2 tumour genetic testing in women newly diagnosed with HGSOC. Increased dispositional optimism provided a protective effect, while increased cancer-related distress increased the psychological impact of tumour genetic testing. Educational resources are needed to help increase patient understanding and recall of tumour results, particularly when tumour genetic testing includes analysis of genes that may have implications for hereditary cancer risk. Additional research is required to better understand the patient experience of reflex tumour genetic testing.

Evaluation of barriers to referral for cancer predisposition syndromes in pediatric oncology patients in the United States

Cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) are underdiagnosed in the pediatric population, though the diagnosis of a CPS has important implications for the child and their family. CPS are often diagnosed by geneticists or oncologists with expertise in CPS following a malignancy. This requires a member of the care team, most commonly, the treating oncologist to suspect a CPS and refer the patient for CPS assessment. An online survey was distributed to members of the Children's Oncology Group to elucidate current referral practices and barriers to referral for patients suspected to have a CPS. Of the 183 respondents, 86.1% was pediatric oncologists and most (68.5%) used formal guidelines to aid in assessment. Most respondents indicated they would rarely refer patients with tumors highly associated with CPS for genetic assessment. Participants were more likely to refer patients with malignancy and additional features of a CPS than for a specific type of cancer, despite the use of guidelines. Parent knowledge of family history was considered the most challenging barrier to obtaining a family history, though a thorough pedigree was not consistently elicited. Providers indicated the most significant barrier to referral for CPS assessment was priority given the patient's immediate care needs. Identification of these barriers provides direction to focus efforts to increase referrals. Provider education about CPS, clear referral guidelines, and implementation of or increased collaboration with a genetic counselor in the pediatric oncology clinic may encourage CPS assessment and enable oncologists to focus on the patient's immediate care needs.

Understanding the Information Needs of Patients With Ovarian Cancer Regarding Genetic Testing to Inform Intervention Design: Interview Study

Background

Experts in gynecological cancer care recommend that all patients with invasive or high-grade ovarian cancer (OC) undergo genetic testing. However, even patients who intend to take or have taken genetic tests have many unaddressed information needs regarding genetic testing. Existing genetic counseling falls short of adequately addressing this challenge.

Objective

This study aims to investigate the genetic testing–related information needs of patients with OC to inform the design of interactive technology-based interventions that can enhance communication of genetic testing information to patients.

Methods

We interviewed 20 patients with OC who had taken genetic tests and gathered genetic testing–related messages from an active OC web-based community. The interview transcripts and web-based community messages were analyzed using the qualitative content analysis method.

Results

Data analyses produced a comprehensive taxonomy of the genetic testing–related information needs of patients with OC, which included five major topic clusters: knowledge of genetic testing as a medical test, genetic testing process, genetic testing implications for patients, implications for family members, and medical terminology. Findings indicated that patients wanted to receive information that was relevant, understandable, concise, usable, appropriate, sympathetic, and available when needed. They also preferred various channels to receive information, including internet-based technologies, print, and conversations with health care providers.

Conclusions

Patients with OC need a range of information to address the uncertainties and challenges that they encounter while taking genetic tests. Their preferences for channels to receive information vary widely. A multichannel information delivery solution that combines both provider-led and peer-to-peer education models is needed to supplement existing genetic counseling to effectively meet the genetic testing–related information needs of patients with OC.

Building a Personalized Medicine Infrastructure for Gynecological Oncology Patients in a High-Volume Hospital

Gynecological cancers require complex intervention since patients have specific needs to be addressed. Centralization to high-volume centers improves the oncological outcomes of patients with gynecological cancers. Research in gynecological oncology is increasing thanks to modern technologies, from the comprehensive molecular characterization of tumors and individual pathophenotypes. Ongoing studies are focusing on personalizing therapies by integrating information across genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics with the genetic makeup and immune system of the patient. Hence, several challenges must be faced to provide holistic benefit to the patient. Personalized approaches should also recognize the unmet needs of each patient to successfully deliver the promise of personalized care, in a multidisciplinary effort. This may provide the greatest opportunity to improve patients' outcomes. Starting from a narrative review on gynecological oncology patients' needs, this article focuses on the experience of building a research and care infrastructure for personalized patient management.

Awareness of genetic counseling and genetic testing for hereditary gynecologic cancers among Korean healthcare providers: A survey

We conducted a survey to evaluate the awareness of genetic counseling and testing for hereditary gynecologic cancers among Korean healthcare providers. We performed an on-the-spot survey using 29 questions on respondents' basic information, awareness of pre/post-test genetic counseling, genetic information management, and related social issues. We surveyed healthcare providers who attended the 2019 Hereditary Gynecologic Cancer Symposium organized by the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Of the 108 attendees, 85 (78.7%) participated in the survey. Among them, 45% (37/83) and 40% (33/83) did not have a separate clinic and had a dedicated team for genetic counseling in their institutions, respectively. Most respondents (60/76, 79%) recommended genetic testing for all women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Many respondents simultaneously (20/85, 24%) or sequentially (45/85, 53%) tested for both pathogenic somatic and germline variants, whereas a few respondents (2/85, 2%) checked for only pathogenic somatic variants using tissue samples. Only 20% (17/85) of the respondents recommended genetic testing for all women with endometrial cancer; meanwhile, 68% (58/86) offered the test based on the results of the screening test or family history. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was recommended to unaffected women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants by 69.4% of the respondents (59/85). Most respondents (73/85, 85.9%) needed a manual on bioethics law; a few required a clinical update of hereditary cancer (73/85, 85.9%). The awareness of genetic counseling and testing and the pattern of clinical practice for hereditary gynecologic cancers differ among institutions and regions in Korea. A discussion on these issues and the development of an integrated manual for healthcare providers are required.

The role of psychosocial factors in Black women's self-efficacy in receiving genetic counseling and testing

Higher self-efficacy in receiving genetic counseling and testing (GCT) has been associated with greater participation in GCT for women at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), but little is known about correlates of self-efficacy in Black women eligible for GCT. The goal of this secondary analysis was to identify sociodemographic and psychosocial factors regarding GCT. Multivariable regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between self-efficacy and correlates of interest. Of the 100 Black women surveyed, most women had a college degree (64%), were employed (84%), and had health insurance (93%). In the multivariable model, greater self-efficacy was associated with more positive attitudes toward GCT (Β = 0.126; CI = 0.01 to 0.25; p = 0.039), greater confidence in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) (Β = 0.250; CI = 0.04 to 0.46; p = 0.019), and lower ratings of perceived difficulty obtaining GCT (Β = -0.219; CI = -0.46 to -0.10; p = 0.003). Community-level interventions to promote self-efficacy are needed that address perceived barriers to GCT, with the goals of increasing GINA Law awareness in the general public, increasing accessibility to genetic counseling (e.g., telemedicine), and promoting more positive attitudes about GCT.

"I think that a brief conversation from their provider can go a very long way": Patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators of genetic testing after ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Identify predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting genetic counseling/testing among ovarian cancer patients guided by Green and Kreuter's PRECEDE-PROCEED model.

METHODS

Gynecologic oncology providers (N = 4), genetic counselors (N = 4), and ovarian cancer patients (N = 9) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring participants' knowledge of and experiences with genetic counseling/testing. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive content analysis by two independent raters.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting referral for and uptake of genetic counseling/testing. Predisposing factors included participant's knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes related to genetic counseling/testing. Both patients and providers also cited that insurance coverage and out-of-pocket cost are major concerns for ovarian cancer patients considering genetic testing. Finally, both patients and providers emphasized that genetic counseling/testing would provide additional information to an ovarian cancer patient. While providers emphasized that genetic testing results were useful for informing a patient's personal treatment plan, patients emphasized that this knowledge would be beneficial for their family members.

CONCLUSION

Barriers to genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients exist at multiple levels, including the patient (e.g., knowledge, attitudes), the provider (e.g., workload, availability of services), the institution (e.g., difficulty with referrals/scheduling), and the healthcare system (e.g., insurance/cost). Interventions aiming to increase genetic testing among ovarian cancer patients will likely need to target multiple levels of influence. Future quantitative studies are needed to replicate these results. This line of work will inform specific multilevel intervention strategies that are adaptable to different practice settings, ultimately improving guideline concordant care.

Knowledge and psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing among individuals with ovarian cancer

In a sample of individuals with ovarian cancer, we aimed to (a) identify factors associated with the psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing, (b) identify factors associated with cancer genetics knowledge, and (c) summarize patient-reported recommendations to improve the genetic counseling and multigene panel testing process. Eligible participants in this secondary analysis of quantitative and qualitative survey data were English-speaking adults with ovarian cancer. Psychosocial impact was assessed using the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Knowledge of cancer genetics was assessed using the KnowGene scale. Significant predictors of MICRA and KnowGene scores were identified using multiple regression. Open-ended survey item responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Eighty-seven participants met eligibility criteria. A positive genetic test result was associated with greater adverse psychosocial impact (B = 1.13, p = 0.002). Older age (B = - 0.07, p = 0.044) and being a member of a minority racial or ethnic group (B = - 3.075, p = 0.033) were associated with lower knowledge, while a personal history of at least one other type of cancer (B = 1.975, p = 0.015) was associated with higher knowledge. In open-ended item responses, participants wanted clinicians to assist with family communication, improve result disclosure, and enhance patient and family understanding of results. A subset of individuals with ovarian cancer who receive a positive genetic test result may be at risk for adverse psychosocial outcomes. Tailored cancer genetics education is necessary to promote the equitable uptake of targeted ovarian cancer treatment and risk-reducing therapies. Interventions to enhance patient-clinician communication in this setting are a research priority.

The Knowledge and Attitude of Patients Diagnosed with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer towards Genetic Testing

This study assessed the knowledge and attitude of patients with ovarian cancer (OC) toward OC and next generation sequencing (NGS). The data, including characteristics of patients, their knowledge about OC and their knowledge and attitude of NGS, were collected from June to October 2018. Of the 103 participants, 70.9% (n = 73) had cancer within the second-degree relatives, and 18.4% (n = 19) had BRCA pathogenic mutations. The percentage of right answer for the knowledge about OC and NGS was 64.7% (11/17) and 50% (6/12), respectively. The median number of patients who had positive expectations for the genetic test was 34 (range, 22-44). Based on a first-degree familial history, patients had a different degree of knowledge about OC (11 vs. 8.5, p = 0.026) and NGS (6.5 vs. 5, p = 0.011), but patients with a BRCA pathogenic mutation did not have a different degree of knowledge about OC and NGS panel testing. High-income families had a more positive attitude towards the genetic test than low-income families (p = 0.005). Women with OC do not have enough knowledge about OC (11/17, 64.7%) and NGS (6/12, 50%) but they showed a positive attitude toward the NGS test. These women need OC and NGS educational intervention.

Embedding a genetic counselor into oncology clinics improves testing rates and timeliness for women with ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Germline genetic testing is crucial to the care of ovarian cancer patients, and as part of the guideline-based care for ovarian cancer patient's adherence to this recommendation has been low. We sought to determine whether embedding a genetic counselor (GC) within a medical and gynecologic oncology clinic would increase testing rates and improve the timeliness of testing.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of 358 ovarian cancer patients seen by medical and gynecologic oncologists between 2013 and 2015. Rates of referrals, completion of counseling, and genetic testing and timeliness of counseling were abstracted before and after a GC was embedded in the clinic in 2014. An additional year of data (2015) was collected to evaluate sustainability of the intervention.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2015, 88-92% of women were referred for genetic testing, but in 2013 only 66% completed counseling and 61% were tested. After a GC was embedded in the clinic in 2014, more than 80% of referred women completed counseling and germline genetic testing. Time to genetic counseling also decreased from a median of 107 to 40 days, irrespective of age and cancer family history (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Embedding a GC into the workflow for ovarian cancer patients is an effective way of improving access to genetic counseling, testing rates, and the timeliness of testing.

Setting a baseline: A 7-year review of referral rates and outcomes for serous ovarian cancer prior to implementation of oncologist mediated genetic testing

OBJECTIVE

Despite guidelines recommending that all women with invasive serous ovarian cancer (SOC) are offered genetic testing, published referral and testing rates have been poor. Many centers have implemented novel genetic counseling service delivery models to increase testing rates. In light of increased awareness and implementation of small process changes at our center, this study aims to establish baseline referral rates and testing outcomes prior to diverging from the traditional model of care.

METHODS

A list of women diagnosed with SOC at Princess Margaret Cancer Center (PM) between 2010 and 2016 was obtained from the PM Cancer Registry and cross-referenced against the genetics database to determine referral rates and outcomes of genetic testing.

RESULTS

Of 724 women with SOC, 68% were referred for genetic counseling, with an overall testing rate of 61%. Higher referral rates were seen among women with younger ages at diagnosis and high-grade tumors. Of women tested, 22% were found to have a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2 and 9% in another cancer gene. Notably, 24% of women with a pathogenic variant reported no family history of breast or ovarian cancer.

CONCLUSION

Genetic counseling referral and testing rates for women with SOC are higher than previously reported, yet barriers to referral remain. To maximize genetic testing rates and address increasing patient volumes, clinics may be faced with integrating novel genetic counseling delivery models. Findings from this study may serve as a more accurate baseline to which large scale service delivery changes can be compared.

Patterns and predictors of genetic referral among ovarian cancer patients at a National Cancer Institute-Comprehensive Cancer Center

Germline mutations (eg, BRCA1/2) have prognostic and treatment implications for ovarian cancer (OVCA) patients. Thus, national guidelines recommend genetic testing for OVCA patients. The present study examines patterns and predictors of genetics referral in OVCA patients. Electronic medical record data were abstracted retrospectively from 557 OVCA patients treated from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2015. Logistic regression models identified sociodemographic characteristics, disease/treatment characteristics, family history data, provider characteristics, and survival data that predicted genetics referral. Overall, 27.5% of patients received referral. Eleven variables predicting referral were selected during stepwise regression: younger age, White race, not having private insurance, professional school education, year of OVCA diagnosis, platinum sensitivity, female gynecologic oncologist, chemotherapy administered by a gynecologic oncologist, clinical trial enrollment, longer overall survival, and family history of OVCA. Genetics referral among OVCA patients was similar to rates reported nationwide. Unique predictive factors will contribute to quality improvement and should be validated at a multi-institutional level to ensure guideline concordant care is provided to all OVCA patients. Future research should identify both patient-level and provider-level factors associated with genetics referral.

Patient and Health Care Provider Needs and Preferences in Understanding Pharmacogenomic and Genomic Testing: A Meta-Data Analysis

Tests that feature genomic indicators can now be used to guide the pharmacological treatment of patients. To better identify the needs and preferences of patients and health care providers in facilitating their understanding of information related to such pharmacogenomic tests (PGx), a review of literature on knowledge translation and health literacy in the context of testing was conducted. Using a grounded theory-based approach, a comparative analysis of data from 36 studies meeting the criteria for the meta-data analysis has revealed the recurrence of three principal themes: (a) knowledge and understanding of genetics and pharmacogenomics; (b) experiences with genetic, genomic, or PGx testing (decision about the test, information delivery, and understanding of test results); and (c) educational/informational resources. This synthesis sheds light on each theme from the standpoint of both patients and health care providers and suggests avenues in which to direct efforts to support the introduction of pharmacogenomic tests in current practice.

BRCA mutation testing for ovarian cancer in the context of available targeted therapy: Survey and consensus of Hong Kong specialists

AIMS

BRCA mutation (BRCAmut) testing is an important tool for the risk assessment, prevention and early diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC), and more recently, for determining patient susceptibility to targeted therapy. This study assessed the current BRCAmut testing patterns and explored physicians' perspectives on the utilities and optimal sequencing of the testing, in order to facilitate and standardize testing practices.

METHODS

Medical specialists in BC and OC in Hong Kong were invited to complete a questionnaire on BRCAmut testing practices. A panel of specialists with extensive BRCAmut testing experience was also convened to develop consensus statements on testing, using the Delphi method and an anonymous electronic voting system.

RESULTS

The survey respondents (n = 71) recognized family history (FH) of BC and/or OC and an early age of onset as key factors for referring BRCAmut testing. The proportion of respondents who would test all OCs regardless of FH or age, as per the recent international guideline, was low (28.2%). The largest hurdles to testing were the cost, as well as the availability of next-generation sequencing-accredited testing and genetic counseling facilities. The panelists suggested that the sequence of somatic testing followed by germline testing may help address both the imminent need of treatment planning and longer term hereditary implications. The potential emotional and financial burdens of BRCAmut testing should be weighed against the potential therapeutic benefits, and the type and timing of testing personalized.

CONCLUSIONS

Accessibility of BRCAmut testing to all at-risk individuals will be achievable through improvements in testing affordability, as well as widened availability of accredited testing and genetic counseling facilities.

Preferences of women with epithelial ovarian cancer for aspects of genetic testing

Background

Although genetic testing is recommended for women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), little is known about patient preferences for various testing options. We measured relative preferences for attributes of testing in women with EOC referred for genetic counseling.

Methods

Subjects were recruited to participate in a discrete-choice-experiment survey to elicit preferences for attributes of genetic testing: out-of-pocket cost ($0, $100, $250, or $1000), probability of a deleterious mutation (60, 80%, or 88%), probability of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) result (5, 20%, or 40%), sample requirements (blood or saliva), and turn-around time (1, 2 or 4 weeks). Subjects viewed educational videos followed by a series of choices between pairs of constructed genetic tests with varying attribute levels. Random-parameters logit was used to estimate preference weights for attribute levels. Relative importance weights and money-equivalent values were calculated.

Results

Ninety-four patients were enrolled; 68 (76.4%) presented for genetic counseling. Test cost was the most important attribute to subjects (importance weight = 41 out of 100) followed by probability to detect deleterious mutations (36) and probability of a VUS result (20). Sample requirements and turnaround time did not drive test choices. Subjects were willing to pay an additional $155 and $70 for incremental 5% improvements in the probability to detect deleterious mutations and probability of a VUS result. At genetics consultation, 55/68 (80.9%) subjects chose multigene testing.

Conclusions

Low out-of-pocket cost, high probability of detecting deleterious mutations and high probability of a VUS result are preferred by patients with EOC considering genetic testing.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40661-019-0066-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.