Search

10529 Background: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend testing for highly penetrant breast/ovarian cancer genes in several scenarios, including women with early-onset (≤ 45 years) or metastatic HER-2 negative breast cancer regardless of family history. A 2018 Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) survey (N = 95) showed that > 80% of respondents reported ≤ 50% testing rate of patients with breast cancer who met guidelines. To improve rates of genetic counseling(GC)/testing, ACCC partnered with 15 community cancer programs to support site-directed quality improvement (QI) interventions. Methods: Pre- and post-intervention data from 9/15 partner programs for genetically at-risk women with early-onset or HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were analyzed. Pre-intervention data were collected between 01/01/2017 and 06/30/2019 while post-intervention data were collected as early as 07/01/2019 and as late as 10/01/2020. QI project scope ranged from creation of testing eligibility education to implementation of a virtual GC clinic. De-identified data collected included: family history documentation; GC appointment; test results; and timing of results relative to surgical date. Results: The pre-intervention cohort included 2691 women and the post- cohort included 3104 women who were eligible for GC. Early-onset patients in the post-intervention group attended a GC appointment 83% (331/401) of the time and 74% (296/401) had genetic test results, with 92% (271/296) receiving results before surgery. Sixty-one percent (1387/2267) of women with HER-2 negative MBC in the post-intervention group received GC, compared to 36% (658/1845) in the pre-intervention group. There was an overall increase in the number of MBC patients with documented test results following GC in the post-intervention cohort (55% (1243/2267) versus 15% (273/1845); p < 0.0001). Rates of GC appointments improved overall, regardless of family history documentation. Rates among those with a documented high-risk family history improved from 57% (729/1284) to 85% (1485/1741) following QI interventions (p < 0.0001). There was also a significantly higher rate of GC provided in the post-intervention group among women with negative family histories (40% (462/1155) versus 23% (181/778); p < 0.0001). GC also increased from 6% (35/629) to 45% (94/208) of women in the post-intervention cohort with no documentation of family history (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Genetic testing is underutilized in women with breast cancer. Significant improvement was achieved with QI initiatives specifically designed to target easily identified populations meeting guidelines for GC/testing. This project demonstrates the importance of attention to practice-directed strategies aimed at improving identification of risk as well as follow through to GC/testing.

1526 Background: Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for genetic/familial high-risk assessment state that testing for highly penetrant breast/ovarian cancer genes is clinically indicated for women with early onset (≤ 45 years) or metastatic HER-2 negative breast cancer. A recent Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) survey (N = 95) showed that > 80% of respondents reported ≤ 50% testing rate of patients with breast cancer who met guidelines. Given this disconnect, ACCC partnered with 15 community cancer programs to assess practice gaps and support interventions to improve access to genetic counseling (GC)/testing. Methods: Pre-intervention data from 9/15 partner programs for women diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer between 01/01/2017 and 06/30/2019 was collected. De-identified variables included: family history documentation, GC appointment/test results, and timing of results relative to treatment decisions. Results: There were 2691 women with stages 0-III breast cancer. Forty-eight percent (1284/2691) had a documented high-risk family history, 57% (729/1284) of whom had a GC appointment. This was a significantly higher rate of GC compared to the 23% (181/778) of women with no family history and 6% (35/629) of women with no documentation of family history (p < 0.0001). Patients ≤ 45 years old attended a GC appointment 72% (199/278) of the time and 49% (135/278) had genetic test results, with 84% (113/135) receiving results before surgery. For women with test results available before surgery, 37% (119/322) had breast conserving surgery, compared to 60% (144/240) with test results disclosed post-operatively (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Genetic testing is underutilized in a community cohort of women with breast cancer. Further analysis is needed to understand the impact genetic test results have on surgical decisions. Opportunities exist to improve current rates of appropriate GC/testing. ACCC will share results of quality improvement projects to illuminate which strategies hold promise in reducing the hereditary breast cancer GC/testing practice gap.