Patients’ experiences with pre-test genetic counseling provided by breast cancer healthcare professionals: Results from a large prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Pre-test genetic counseling of patients with breast cancer is increasingly being offered by non-genetic healthcare professionals. We aimed to evaluate the experiences of patients with breast cancer receiving pre-test genetic counseling from a non-genetic healthcare professional (i.e., surgeon or nurse).

METHODS

Patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer and received pre-test counseling from their surgeon or nurse (mainstream group), and patients who received pre-test counseling from a clinical geneticist (usual care group) were invited to participate in our multicenter study. Between September 2019 and December 2021, patients received a questionnaire after pre-test counseling (T0) and four weeks after receiving their test results (T1) to evaluate psychosocial outcomes, knowledge, discussed topics and satisfaction.

RESULTS

We included 191 patients in our mainstream and 183 patients in our usual care group and received, respectively 159 and 145 follow-up questionnaires. Levels of distress and decisional regret were comparable in both groups. Decisional conflict was higher in our mainstream group (p = 0.01), but only 7% had clinically relevant decisional conflict (vs 2% in usual care group). The possible implications of a genetic test on (secondary) breast or ovarian cancer risks were less frequently discussed in our mainstream group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.000, respectively). In both groups knowledge about genetics was comparable, satisfaction was high and the majority of patients in both groups preferred to give both verbal and written consent for genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Mainstreamed genetic care provides sufficient information for the majority of breast cancer patients to decide about genetic testing with minimal distress.

Surgical Oncologists and Nurses in Breast Cancer Care are Ready to Provide Pre-Test Genetic Counseling

BACKGROUND

Pre-test genetic counseling for patients with breast cancer is increasingly being provided by nongenetic healthcare professionals. We evaluated the attitudes, knowledge, and self-efficacy of surgeons, oncologists, and nurses regarding mainstream genetic testing and the feasibility to incorporate pre-test genetic counseling into routine care.

METHODS

We offered an online training to healthcare professionals from 13 hospitals and implemented a mainstream genetic testing pathway in 11/13 (85%) hospitals. Questionnaires were sent before (T0) and 6 months after (T1) completing the training. Those who did not complete the training received a questionnaire to assess their motivations.

RESULTS

In 11 hospitals, 80 (65%) healthcare professionals completed the training, of whom 70 (88%) completed both questionnaires. The attitudes, (perceived) knowledge and self-efficacy of healthcare professionals were high both at baseline and 6 months after completing the training. After 6 months, their perceived knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of a genetic test and implications for family members had significantly improved (p = 0.012 and p = 0.021, respectively). For the majority (89%), the time investment for pre-test genetic counseling was less than 15 min per patient and as expected or better. Healthcare professionals considered the total time investment feasible to incorporate mainstream genetic testing into their daily practice. The main barrier to complete the training was lack of time. The online training was considered useful, with a rating of 8/10.

CONCLUSION

Surgical oncologists and nurses in breast cancer care feel well-equipped and motivated to provide pre-test genetic counseling after completion of an online training module.

Mainstream germline genetic testing for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer leads to higher testing rates and a reduction in genetics-related healthcare costs from a healthcare payer perspective

OBJECTIVE

Germline genetic testing is increasingly offered to patients with epithelial ovarian cancer by non-genetic healthcare professionals, so called mainstream genetic testing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of implementing a mainstream genetic testing pathway on the percentage of newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer to whom genetic testing was offered and the genetics-related healthcare costs.

METHODS

The possible care pathways for genetic counseling and testing and their associated costs were mapped. Patient files from all newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer before (March 2016 - September 2017) and after (April 2018 - December 2019) implementing our mainstream genetic testing pathway were analyzed. Based on this analysis, the percentage of newly diagnosed patients to whom genetic testing was offered was assessed and genetics-related healthcare costs were calculated using a healthcare payer perspective based on a Diagnosis-Related Group financing approach.

RESULTS

Within six months after diagnosis, genetic testing was offered to 56% of patients before and to 70% of patients after implementation of our mainstream genetic testing pathway (p = 0.005). Genetics-related healthcare costs decreased from €3.511,29 per patient before implementation to €2.418,41 per patient after implementation of our mainstream genetic testing pathway (31% reduction, p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that mainstream genetic testing leads to a significantly higher proportion of newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer being offered germline genetic testing. In addition, it significantly reduces genetics-related healthcare costs per patient.

Evaluation of the ARKRAY HA-8190V instrument for HbA1c

OBJECTIVES

Hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) is a valuable parameter in the monitoring of diabetic patients and increasingly in diagnosis of diabetes. Manufacturers continuously optimize instruments, currently the main focus is to achieve faster turnaround times. It is important that performance specifications remain of high enough standard, which is evaluated in this study for the new ARKRAY HA-8190V instrument.

METHODS

The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) protocols EP-5, EP-9 and EP-10 were applied to investigate imprecision, bias and linearity. In addition potential interferences, performance in External Quality Assessment (EQA) and performance against the HA-8180V instrument in 220 clinical samples was evaluated.

RESULTS

The HA-8190V demonstrates a CV of ≤0.8% in IFCC SI units (≤0.6% National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program [NGSP]) at 34 and 102 mmol/mol levels (5.3 and 11.5% NGSP) and a bias of -0.1 mmol/mol (-0.01% NGSP) at a concentration of 50 mmol/mol (6.7% NGSP), but with a significant slope as compared to target values. This results in a bias of -1.0 and 0.9 mmol/mol (-2.0 and 0.9% NGSP) at the 30 and 70 mmol/mol (4.9 and 8.6% NGSP) concentration level. Simulation of participation in the IFCC certification programme results in a Silver score (bias -0.1 mmol/mol, CV 1.1%). Interference in the presence of the most important Hb variants (AS, AC, AE, AD) and elevated HbA₂ and HbF concentrations is less than 3 mmol/mol (0.3% NGSP) at a concentration of 50 mmol/mol (6.7% NGSP).

CONCLUSIONS

Analytical performance of the HA-8190V is very good, especially with respect to precision and HbA_1c quantification in the presence of the most common Hb variants.