Search

A Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) is a difference in the DNA sequence with uncertain consequences for gene function. A VUS in a hereditary cancer gene should not change medical care, yet some patients undergo medical procedures based on their VUS result, highlighting the unmet educational needs among patients and healthcare providers. To address this need, we developed, evaluated, and refined novel educational materials to explain that while VUS results do not change medical care, it remains important to share any personal or family history of cancer with family members given that their personal and family medical history can guide their cancer risk management. We began by reviewing the prior literature and transcripts from interviews with six individuals with a VUS result to identify content and design considerations to incorporate into educational materials. We then gathered feedback to improve materials via a focus group of multidisciplinary experts and multiple rounds of semi-structured interviews with individuals with a VUS result. Themes for how to improve content, visuals, and usefulness were used to refine the materials. In the final round of interviews with an additional 10 individuals with a VUS result, materials were described as relatable, useful, factual, and easy to navigate, and also increased their understanding of cancer gene VUS results.

Pharmacogenetic testing could reduce the time to identify a safe and effective medication for depression; however, it is underutilized in practice. Major depression constitutes the most common mental disorder in the US, and while antidepressant therapy can help, the current trial -and error approach can require patients to endure multiple medication trials before finding one that is effective. Tailoring the fit of pharmacogenetic testing with prescribers' needs across a variety of settings could help to establish a generalizable value proposition to improve likelihood of adoption. We conducted a study to explore the value proposition for health systems using pharmacogenetic testing for mental health medications through prescribers' real-world experiences using implementation science concepts and systematic interviews with prescribers and administrators from four health care systems. To identify a value proposition, we organized the themes according to the Triple Aim framework, a leading framework for health care policy which asserts that high-value care should focus on three key metrics: (1) better health care quality and (2) population-level outcomes with (3) reduced per capita costs. Primary care providers whom we interviewed said that they value pharmacogenetic testing because it would provide more information about medications that they can prescribe, expanding their ability to identify medications that best-fit patients and reducing their reliance on referrals to specialists; they said that this capacity would help meet patients' needs for access to mental health care through primary care. At the same time, prescribers expressed differing views about how pharmacogenetic testing can help with quality of care and whether their views about out-of-pocket cost would prevent them from offering it. Thus, implementation should focus on integrating pharmacogenetic testing into primary care and using strategies to support prescribers' interactions with patients., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Introduction: In over 50 years since the genetic counseling (GC) profession began, a systematic study of GC communication skills and patient-reported outcomes in actual sessions across multiple clinical specialties has never been conducted. To optimize GC quality and improve efficiency of care, the field must first be able to comprehensively measure GC skills and determine which skills are most critical to achieving positive patient experiences and outcomes. This study aims to characterise GC communication skills using a novel and pragmatic measure and link variations in communication skills to patient-reported outcomes, across clinical specialties and with patients from diverse backgrounds in the USA. Our community-engagement and provider-engagement approach is crucial to develop recommendations for quality, culturally informed GC care, which are greatly needed to improve GC practice., Methods and Analysis: A mixed methods, sequential explanatory design will be used to collect and analyze: audio-recorded GC sessions in cancer, cardiac, and prenatal/reproductive genetic indications; pre-visit and post-visit quantitative surveys capturing patient experiences and outcomes and post-visit qualitative interview data. A novel, practical checklist will measure GC communication skills. Coincidence analysis will identify patterns of GC skills that are consistent with high scores on patient-reported measures. Two-level, multilevel models will be used to evaluate how GC communication skills and other session/patient characteristics predict patient-reported outcomes. Four community advisory boards (CABs) and a genetic counselor advisory board will inform the study design and analysis., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the single Institutional Review Board of the University of Minnesota. This research poses no greater than minimal risk to participants. Results from this study will be shared through national and international conferences and through community-based dissemination as guided by the study's CABs. A lay summary will also be disseminated to all participants., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The Implementing Universal Lynch Syndrome Screening (IMPULSS) study explained institutional variation in universal tumor screening (UTS) with the goal of identifying ways to aid organizational decision-makers in implementing and optimizing Lynch syndrome UTS programs., Methods: After applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 1.0) to analyze interviews with 66 stakeholders across 9 healthcare systems to develop a toolkit for implementation, we adapted the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) to assess toolkit potential to aid decision-making consistent with organizational values. We then conducted user testing with two experienced and four non-experienced implementers of UTS to improve the content and functionality of the toolkit and assess its acceptability and appropriateness., Results: Toolkit components were organized to address findings related to CFIR 1.0 constructs of evidence strength and quality, relative advantage, cost, engaging, planning, executing, and reflecting and evaluating. A home page was added to direct users to different sections based on whether they are deciding to implement UTS, planning for implementation, improving an existing UTS program, or considering a different approach to identify patients with Lynch syndrome. Upon initial evaluation, 31 of 64 IPDAS criteria were met by the original toolkit. All users rated the toolkit as acceptable and appropriate for assisting organizational decision-making and identified multiple areas for improvement. Numerous iterative changes were made to the toolkit, resulting in meeting 17 of the previously unmet IPDAS criteria., Conclusion: We demonstrate the rigorous development of a toolkit guided by the CFIR and show how user testing helped improve the toolkit to ensure it is acceptable, appropriate, and meets most IPDAS criteria relevant to organizational values-based decision-making., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC). Universal tumor screening (UTS) of newly diagnosed CRC cases is recommended to aid in diagnosis of LS and reduce cancer-related morbidity and mortality. However, not all health systems have adopted UTS processes and implementation may be inconsistent due to system and patient-level complexities., Methods: To identify barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improvements of the UTS process from the patient perspective, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients recently diagnosed with CRC, but not screened for or aware of LS. Patients were recruited from eight regionally diverse US health systems. Interviews were conducted by telephone, 60-minutes, audio-recorded, and transcribed. An inductive, constant comparative analysis approach was employed.  RESULTS: We completed 75 interviews across the eight systems. Most participants were white (79%), about half (52%) were men, and the mean age was 60 years. Most self-reported either no (60%) or minimal (40%) prior awareness of LS. Overall, 96% of patients stated UTS should be a routine standard of care for CRC tumors, consistently citing four primary motivations for wanting to know their LS status and engage in the process for LS identification: "knowledge is power"; "family knowledge"; "prevention and detection"; and "treatment and surveillance." Common concerns pertaining to the process of screening for and identifying LS included: creating anticipatory worry for patients, the potential cost and the accuracy of the genetic test, and possibly having one's health insurance coverage impacted by the LS diagnosis. Patients suggested health systems communicate LS results in-person or by phone from a trained expert in LS; offer proactive verbal and written education about LS, the screening steps, and any follow-up surveillance recommendations; and support patients in communicating their LS screening to any of their blood relatives., Conclusion: Our qualitative findings demonstrate patients with CRC have a strong desire for healthcare systems to regularly implement and offer UTS. Patients offer key insights for health systems to guide future implementation and optimization of UTS and other LS screening programs and maximize diagnosis of individuals with LS and improve cancer-related surveillance and outcomes., Trial Registration: Not available: not a clinical trial., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The delivery of hereditary cancer pre-test education among Spanish-language patients is impeded by the dearth of Spanish-speaking genetic counselors. To address this gap, we evaluated a web-based genetic education tool delivered in Spanish to provide information typically discussed during an initial genetic counseling session. Spanish-speaking patients with a personal or family history of cancer were recruited at two centers in Puerto Rico and through social media. A total of 41 participants completed a survey before and after viewing the tool to measure knowledge, attitudes, and decisional empowerment. A subset of 10 participants completed a virtual semi-structured interview to assess the usability and appropriateness of the tool. Paired t-tests were calculated to evaluate changes in knowledge and attitudes. A McNemar test assessed for decisional empowerment. Interview transcripts were translated from Spanish to English and inductively coded and analyzed. Results revealed significant increases in knowledge ( p < 0.001), while attitudes about genetic testing did not change ( p = 0.77). The proportion of individuals who felt fully informed and empowered to decide about whether to undergo genetic testing increased from 15% to 51% ( p < 0.001). Qualitative data indicated that participants found the tool easy to use with informative and valuable content. Our findings suggest this Spanish-language tool is a user-friendly and scalable solution to help inform and empower many individuals to decide about cancer genetic testing, recognizing that others may still benefit from genetic counseling prior to testing.

Background: Identifying key determinants is crucial for improving program implementation and achieving long-term sustainment within healthcare organizations. Organizational-level complexity and heterogeneity across multiple stakeholders can complicate our understanding of program implementation. We describe two data visualization methods used to operationalize implementation success and to consolidate and select implementation factors for further analysis., Methods: We used a combination of process mapping and matrix heat mapping to systematically synthesize and visualize qualitative data from 66 stakeholder interviews across nine healthcare organizations, to characterize universal tumor screening programs of all newly diagnosed colorectal and endometrial cancers and understand the influence of contextual factors on implementation. We constructed visual representations of protocols to compare processes and score process optimization components. We also used color-coded matrices to systematically code, summarize, and consolidate contextual data using factors from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Combined scores were visualized in a final data matrix heat map., Results: Nineteen process maps were created to visually represent each protocol. Process maps identified the following gaps and inefficiencies: inconsistent execution of the protocol, no routine reflex testing, inconsistent referrals after a positive screen, no evidence of data tracking, and a lack of quality assurance measures. These barriers in patient care helped us define five process optimization components and used these to quantify program optimization on a scale from 0 (no program) to 5 (optimized), representing the degree to which a program is implemented and optimally maintained. Combined scores within the final data matrix heat map revealed patterns of contextual factors across optimized programs, non-optimized programs, and organizations with no program., Conclusions: Process mapping provided an efficient method to visually compare processes including patient flow, provider interactions, and process gaps and inefficiencies across sites, thereby measuring implementation success via optimization scores. Matrix heat mapping proved useful for data visualization and consolidation, resulting in a summary matrix for cross-site comparisons and selection of relevant CFIR factors. Combining these tools enabled a systematic and transparent approach to understanding complex organizational heterogeneity prior to formal coincidence analysis, introducing a stepwise approach to data consolidation and factor selection., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Using a patient's genetic information to inform medication prescriptions can be clinically effective; however, the practice has not been widely implemented. Health systems need guidance on how to engage with providers to improve pharmacogenetic test utilization. Approaches from the field of implementation science may shed light on the complex factors affecting pharmacogenetic test use in real-world settings and areas to target to improve utilization. This paper presents an approach to studying the application of precision medicine that utilizes mixed qualitative and quantitative methods and implementation science frameworks to understand which factors or combinations consistently account for high versus low utilization of pharmocogenetic testing. This approach involves two phases: (1) collection of qualitative and quantitative data from providers-the cases-at four clinical institutions about their experiences with, and utilization of, pharmacogenetic testing to identify salient factors; and (2) analysis using a Configurational Comparative Method (CCM), using a mathematical algorithm to identify the minimally necessary and sufficient factors that distinguish providers who have higher utilization from those with low utilization. Advantages of this approach are that it can be used for small to moderate sample sizes, and it accounts for conditions found in real-world settings by demonstrating how they coincide to affect utilization.

Background: Implementing genetic testing for inherited cancer predisposition into routine clinical care offers a tremendous opportunity for cancer prevention and early detection. However, genetic testing itself does not improve outcomes; rather, outcomes depend on implemented follow-up care. The IMPACT study is a hybrid type I randomized effectiveness-implementation trial to simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of two interventions for individuals with inherited cancer predisposition focused on: 1) increasing family communication (FC) of genetic test results; and 2) improving engagement with guideline-based cancer risk management (CRM)., Methods: This prospective study will recruit a racially, geographically, and socioeconomically diverse population of individuals with a documented pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in an inherited cancer gene. Eligible participants will be asked to complete an initial trial survey and randomly assigned to one of three arms: A) GeneSHARE, a website designed to increase FC of genetic test results; B) My Gene Counsel's Living Lab Report, a digital tool designed to improve understanding of genetic test results and next steps, including CRM guidelines; or C) a control arm in which participants continue receiving standard care. Follow-up surveys will be conducted at 1, 3, and 12 months following randomization. These surveys include single-item measures, scales, and indices related to: 1) FC and CRM behaviors and behavioral factors following the COM-B theoretical framework (i.e., capability, opportunity, and motivation); 2) implementation outcomes (i.e., acceptability, appropriateness, exposure, and reach); and 3) other contextual factors (i.e., sociodemographic and clinical factors, and uncertainty, distress, and positive aspects of genetic test results). The primary outcomes are an increase in FC of genetic test results (Arm A) and improved engagement with guideline-based CRM without overtreatment or undertreatment (Arm B) by the 12-month follow-up survey., Discussion: Our interventions are designed to shift the paradigm by which individuals with P/LP variants in inherited cancer genes are provided with information to enhance FC of genetic test results and engagement with guideline-based CRM. The information gathered through evaluating the effectiveness and implementation of these real-world approaches is needed to modify and scale up adaptive, stepped interventions that have the potential to maximize FC and CRM., Trial Registration: This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04763915, date registered: February 21, 2021)., Protocol Version: September 17th, 2021 Amendment Number 04., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Implementation of multifaceted interventions typically involves many diverse elements working together in interrelated ways, including intervention components, implementation strategies, and features of local context. Given this real-world complexity, implementation researchers may be interested in a new mathematical, cross-case method called Coincidence Analysis (CNA) that has been designed explicitly to support causal inference, answer research questions about combinations of conditions that are minimally necessary or sufficient for an outcome, and identify the possible presence of multiple causal paths to an outcome. CNA can be applied as a standalone method or in conjunction with other approaches and can reveal new empirical findings related to implementation that might otherwise have gone undetected., Methods: We applied CNA to a publicly available dataset from Sweden with county-level data on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination campaigns and vaccination uptake in 2012 and 2014 and then compared CNA results to the published regression findings., Results: The original regression analysis found vaccination uptake was positively associated only with the availability of vaccines in schools. CNA produced different findings and uncovered an additional solution path: high vaccination rates were achieved by either (1) offering the vaccine in all schools or (2) a combination of offering the vaccine in some schools and media coverage., Conclusions: CNA offers a new comparative approach for researchers seeking to understand how implementation conditions work together and link to outcomes.

We have entered an era of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomics. Patients have relayed many success stories of DTC genomics about finding causal mutations of genetic diseases before showing any symptoms and taking precautions. However, consumers may also take unnecessary medical actions based on false alarms of "pathogenic alleles". The severity of this problem is not well known. Using publicly available data, we compared DTC microarray genotyping data with deep-sequencing data of 5 individuals and manually checked each inconsistently reported single nucleotide variants (SNVs). We estimated that, on average, a person would have ~5 "pathogenic" alleles reported due to wrongly reported genotypes if using a 23andMe genotyping microarray. We also found that the number of wrongly classified "pathogenic" alleles per person is at least as significant as those due to wrongly reported genotypes. We show that the scale of the false alarm problem could be large enough that the medical costs will become a burden to public health.

Background: Increasing use of genetic tests have identified many variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in genes associated with inherited arrhythmias and cardiomyopathies. Evaluation of clinical practices, including medical management recommendations for VUS patients and their families, is important to prevent over- or under-treatment that may result in morbidity or mortality. The purpose of this study is to describe practices related to VUS results including information and medical management recommendations providers give patients and their families., Methods: An anonymous online survey was distributed to genetic counselors (GCs) and cardiologists who have seen at least one patient for inherited arrhythmias or cardiomyopathies. The survey explored providers' confidence in counseling, explanation of VUSs, topics covered before and after genetic testing, and clinical recommendations using a hypothetical scenario maximizing uncertainty with an unclear clinical and molecular diagnosis. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and median confidence and likelihood of making various medical recommendations were compared across provider type., Results: Providers (N=102) who completed the survey included 29 cardiovascular GCs, 50 GCs from other specialties, and 23 cardiologists. GCs feel more confident than cardiologists counseling about VUS results ( P <0.001); while both cardiovascular GCs and cardiologists feel more confident than other GCs in providing input regarding medical management recommendations ( P =0.001 and P =0.01, respectively). Cardiologists were more likely than cardiac GCs to recommend clinical testing for family members even though testing in the scenario is expected to be uninformative., Conclusions: These findings illustrate how the expertise of different providers may impact decision processes, suggesting the need for interdisciplinary clinics to optimize care for challenging cases.

Purpose: All women diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) ≤age 50 should be referred for genetic counseling (GC) and testing. We sought to compare differences in provider practices and access across a racially and ethnically diverse population of young BC survivors., Methods: A registry-based sample of women diagnosed with invasive BC ≤age 50 from 2009 to 2012 was recruited through the Florida Cancer Registry, and completed a questionnaire and medical record release. Differences were compared across those tested with or without the involvement of a board-certified or credentialed genetics health professional (GHP) in (1) clinical and demographic variables and (2) pretest GC elements., Results: Of 1622 participants, there were 440 Blacks, 285 Hispanics, and 897 Non-Hispanic Whites. Of 831 participants with medical record verification of testing provider, 170 (20%) had documentation of GHP involvement. Among the 613 who recalled a pretest discussion and had GC elements collected, those with GHP involvement were significantly more likely to recall the seven recognized GC elements., Conclusion: GHP involvement was associated with adherence to nationally recommended best practices. With the expanding importance of identifying inherited cancers, it is critical to ensure equitable access to best practices across all populations.

Background : Basic and clinical scientific research at the University of South Florida (USF) have intersected to support a multi-faceted approach around a common focus on rare iron-related diseases. We proposed a modified version of the National Center for Biotechnology Information's (NCBI) Hackathon-model to take full advantage of local expertise in building "Iron Hack", a rare disease-focused hackathon. As the collaborative, problem-solving nature of hackathons tends to attract participants of highly-diverse backgrounds, organizers facilitated a symposium on rare iron-related diseases, specifically porphyrias and Friedreich's ataxia, pitched at general audiences. Methods : The hackathon was structured to begin each day with presentations by expert clinicians, genetic counselors, researchers focused on molecular and cellular biology, public health/global health, genetics/genomics, computational biology, bioinformatics, biomolecular science, bioengineering, and computer science, as well as guest speakers from the American Porphyria Foundation (APF) and Friedreich's Ataxia Research Alliance (FARA) to inform participants as to the human impact of these diseases. Results : As a result of this hackathon, we developed resources that are relevant not only to these specific disease-models, but also to other rare diseases and general bioinformatics problems. Within two and a half days, "Iron Hack" participants successfully built collaborative projects to visualize data, build databases, improve rare disease diagnosis, and study rare-disease inheritance. Conclusions : The purpose of this manuscript is to demonstrate the utility of a hackathon model to generate prototypes of generalizable tools for a given disease and train clinicians and data scientists to interact more effectively., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2019 Ferreira GC et al.)

Background: Systematic screening of all colorectal tumors for Lynch Syndrome (LS) has been recommended since 2009. Currently, implementation of LS screening in healthcare systems remains variable, likely because LS screening involves the complex coordination of multiple departments and individuals across the healthcare system. Our specific aims are to (1) describe variation in LS screening implementation across multiple healthcare systems; (2) identify conditions associated with both practice variation and optimal implementation; (3) determine the relative effectiveness, efficiency, and costs of different LS screening protocols by healthcare system; and (4) develop and test in a real-world setting an organizational toolkit for LS screening program implementation and improvement. This toolkit will promote effective implementation of LS screening in various complex health systems., Methods: This study includes eight healthcare systems with 22 clinical sites at varied stages of implementing LS screening programs. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we will conduct in-depth semi-structured interviews with patients and organizational stakeholders and perform economic evaluation of site-specific implementation costs. These processes will result in a comprehensive cross-case analysis of different organizational contexts. We will utilize qualitative data analysis and configurational comparative methodology to identify facilitators and barriers at the organizational level that are minimally sufficient and necessary for optimal LS screening implementation., Discussion: The overarching goal of this project is to combine our data with theories and tools from implementation science to create an organizational toolkit to facilitate implementation of LS screening in various real-world settings. Our organizational toolkit will account for issues of complex coordination of care involving multiple stakeholders to enhance implementation, sustainability, and ongoing improvement of evidence-based LS screening programs. Successful implementation of such programs will ultimately reduce suffering of patients and their family members from preventable cancers, decrease waste in healthcare system costs, and inform strategies to facilitate the promise of precision medicine., Trial Registration: N/A.

Background: Physicians are charged with implementing evidence-based medicine, yet few are trained in the science of Dissemination and Implementation (D&I). In view of the potential of evidence-based training in D&I to help close the gap between research and practice, the goal of this review is to examine the importance of D&I training in medical education, describe challenges to implementing such training, and provide strategies and resources for building D&I capacity., Methods: We conducted (1) a systematic review to identify US-based D&I training efforts and (2) a critical review of additional literature to inform our evaluation of the challenges and opportunities of integrating D&I training in medical education., Results: Out of 269 unique articles reviewed, 11 described US-based D&I training. Although vibrant and diverse training opportunities exist, their capacity is limited, and they are not designed to meet physicians' needs. Synthesis of relevant literature using a critical review approach identified challenges inherent to changing medical education, as well as challenges related to D&I science. Finally, selected strategies and resources are available for facilitating incorporation of D&I training into medical education and overcoming existing challenges., Conclusions: Integrating D&I training in the medical education curriculum, and particularly in residency and fellowship training, holds promise for bridging the chasm between scientific discoveries and improved patient care and outcomes. However, unique challenges should be addressed, including the need for greater evidence., Competing Interests: Declaration Of Conflicting Interests:The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Introduction: DNA sequencing advances through next-generation sequencing (NGS) and several practice changing events, have led to shifting paradigms for inherited cancer predisposition testing. These changes necessitated a means by which to maximize health benefits without unnecessarily inflating healthcare costs and exacerbating health disparities. Areas covered: NGS-based tests encompass multi-gene panel tests, whole exome sequencing, and whole genome sequencing, all of which test for multiple genes simultaneously, compared to prior sequencing practices through which testing was performed sequentially for one or two genes. Taking an ecological approach, this article synthesizes the current literature to consider the broad impact of these advances from the individual patient-, interpersonal-, organizational-, community- and policy-levels. Furthermore, the authors describe how multi-level factors that impact genetic testing and follow-up care reveal great potential to widen existing health disparities if these issues are not addressed. Expert commentary: As we consider ways to maximize patient benefit from testing in a cost effective manner, it is important to consider perspectives from multiple levels. This information is needed to guide the development of interventions such that the promise of genomic testing may be realized by all populations, regardless of race, ethnicity and ability to pay.

Competing Interests: Authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and contributions are found at the end of this article. How Context Matters: A Dissemination and Implementation Primer for Global OncologistsThe following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or jco.ascopubs.org/site/ifc.Bogda KoczwaraNo relationship to discloseSarah A. BirkenNo relationship to discloseCynthia K. PerryNo relationship to discloseDeborah CragunNo relationship to discloseLeah L. ZulligSpeakers’ Bureau: OptumHealth Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: OptumHealthTamar GinossarNo relationship to discloseJesse NodoraNo relationship to discloseNeetu ChawlaNo relationship to discloseShoba RamanadhanNo relationship to discloseJon KernerNo relationship to discloseRoss C. BrownsonNo relationship to disclose

This article introduces the identification, prevention, and treatment of hereditary cancer as an important public health concern. Hereditary cancer research and educational outreach activities are used to illustrate how public health functions can help to achieve health benefits of genetic and genomic medicine. First, we evaluate genetic service delivery through triangulating patient and provider survey results which reveal variability among providers in hereditary cancer knowledge and genetic service provision. Second, we describe efforts we have made to assure competency among healthcare providers and to inform, educate and empower patients with regard to the rapidly evolving field of genomics and hereditary cancer. Lastly, key policy-issues raised by our experiences are discussed in the context of how they may help us to more effectively translate future genomic technologies into practice in order to attain population health benefits from genetic and genomic medicine.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess potential differences in genetic counseling services delivered by board-certified genetic health-care providers versus non-genetic health-care providers. We evaluated (i) patient recall and content of pretest genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and (ii) whether full BRCA1 and 2 gene sequencing was performed when less expensive single-site or Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutation testing may have been sufficient., Methods: Participants completed a questionnaire and provided BRCA test reports that included testing provider and type of test. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used for analysis., Results: Of 473 participants, >90% were white, female, and BRCA mutation carriers. Of the 276 (58%) with genetic health-care provider involvement, 97% recalled a pretest discussion as compared with 59% of those without genetic health-care provider involvement (P < 0.001). Among the subgroup who recalled a pretest discussion (n = 385), those with genetic health-care provider involvement indicated higher adherence to eight recognized genetic counseling elements, four of which were statistically significant. Furthermore, involvement of a genetic health-care provider halved the likelihood that comprehensive BRCA testing was ordered among the 266 for whom single-site or multisite-3 testing may have been sufficient (P = 0.02)., Conclusion: Our results suggest that genetic health-care provider involvement is associated with adherence to nationally recommended genetic counseling practices and could potentially reduce costs of BRCA genetic testing.

Purpose: Universal tumor screening (UTS) for all colorectal cancer patients can improve the identification of Lynch syndrome, the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer. This multiple-case study explored how variability in UTS procedures influenced patient follow-through (PF) with germ-line testing after a screen-positive result., Methods: Data were obtained through Web-based surveys and telephone interviews with institutional informants. Institutions were categorized as Low-PF (≤10% underwent germ-line testing), Medium-PF (11-40%), or High-PF (>40%). To identify implementation procedures (i.e., conditions) unique to High-PF institutions, qualitative comparative analysis was performed., Results: Twenty-one informants from 15 institutions completed surveys and/or interviews. Conditions present among all five High-PF institutions included the following: (i) disclosure of screen-positive results to patients by genetic counselors; and (ii) genetic counselors either facilitate physician referrals to genetics professionals or eliminate the need for referrals. Although both of these High-PF conditions were present among two Medium-PF institutions, automatic reflex testing was lacking and difficulty contacting screen-positive patients was a barrier. The three remaining Medium-PF and five Low-PF institutions lacked the conditions found in High-PF institutions., Conclusion: METHODS for streamlining UTS procedures, incorporating a high level of involvement of genetic counselors in tracking and communication of results and in reducing barriers to patient contact, are reviewed within a broader discussion on maximizing the effectiveness and public health impact of UTS.

Young Black women in the United States are disproportionately afflicted with breast cancer, a proportion of which may be due to BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) gene mutations. In a cancer registry-based sample of young Black women with breast cancer, we evaluated: (1) the prevalence of BRCA mutations detected through full gene sequencing and large rearrangements testing and (2) proportions that accessed genetic services pre-dating study enrollment. Black women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer ≤age 50 years in 2009-2012 were recruited through the Florida Cancer Registry. Participants completed genetic counseling, a study questionnaire, and consent for medical record release. Saliva specimens were collected for BRCA testing. Overall, 13 participants (9 %) had BRCA mutations detected (including 11 through full gene sequencing and two through large rearrangements testing). One of these large rearrangements, BRCA1 (delExon8), was identified in a participant who had previously tested negative on clinical comprehensive BRCAnalysis that was performed prior to undergoing a lumpectomy. Although all 144 participants met national criteria for referral for cancer genetic risk assessment, 61 (42 %) were referred for genetic counseling and/or had genetic testing preceding study enrollment, and only 20 (14 %) received genetic counseling. Our findings emphasize the importance of large rearrangements testing to increase detection of deleterious BRCA mutations in young Black women with breast cancer. The registry-based design of our study increase the generalizability of findings compared with efforts focused on clinic-based populations. Furthermore, results suggest efforts are needed to improve access to genetic counseling and testing.

Recognizing the importance of identifying patients at high risk for inherited cancer predisposition, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has outlined specific family history patterns associated with an increased risk for BRCA mutations. However, national data indicate a need to facilitate the ability of primary care providers to appropriately identify high risk patients. Once a patient is identified as high risk, it is necessary for the patient to undergo a detailed genetics evaluation to generate a differential diagnosis, determine a cost-effective genetic testing strategy, and interpret results of testing. With identification of inherited predisposition, risk management strategies in line with national guidelines can be implemented to improve patient outcomes through cancer risk reduction and early detection. As use of genetic testing increasingly impacts patient outcomes, the role of primary care providers in the identification and care of individuals at high risk for hereditary cancer becomes even more important. Nevertheless it should be acknowledged that primary care providers face many competing demands and challenges to identify high risk patients. Therefore initiatives which promote multidisciplinary and coordinated care, potentially through academic-community partnerships, may provide an opportunity to enhance care of these patients.