Search

Cancer genomic services (CGS) can support genetic risk‐stratified cancer prevention and treatment. Racial/ethnic minority groups are less likely to access and utilize CGS compared with non‐Hispanic Whites. Little research has described characteristics of interventions targeted at CGS among Latinos. This scoping review aimed to (1) describe interventions promoting uptake of CGS among Latinos in the United States and Latin America, (2) describe intervention adaptations for Latino participants, and (3) summarize intervention implementation factors suggested by reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE‐AIM) framework. We conducted a search in English and Spanish of literature published between 2005 and 2022 across PubMed and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases. Sixteen of 2344 papers met the inclusion criteria of the analysis. Efforts to promote CGS among Latino communities were limited in the US and lower in Latin America. This review highlights the need for in‐depth exploration of acculturation‐informed interventions and better reporting on implementation factors to enhance their scalability across diverse settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Various therapeutic strategies are available for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). But which approach is the most cost-effective remains uncertain. Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line strategies in aHCC patients from the perspective of Chinese and US payers. Design: A network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness study. Data sources and methods: A NMA was conducted to collect all first-line strategies with aHCC from 1 October 1 2018 until 1 January 2022. The relevant randomized controlled trial literature in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for the last 3 years were searched. The abstracts of meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, and American Association for Cancer Research were also reviewed. A Markov model that included three states was developed. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to investigate the uncertainty of the economic evaluation. Scenario analysis was conducted to explore the economic benefits of treatment strategies in low-income populations. Results: Base-case analysis in China included 1712 patients showed that atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab, sintilimab combined with bevacizumab, lenvatinib (LEVA), and sorafenib (SORA) added 0.46, 1.25, 0.77, and −1.08 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), respectively, compared with donafenib, resulting in an incremental cost-effective ratio of $85607.88, $12109.27, and $1651.47 per QALY at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $11101.70/QALY. In the United States, only the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of SORA was higher that were lower than the WTP threshold ($69375/QALY), and LEVA was the most cost-effective strategy with the ICERs were 25022.13/QALY. Conclusion: The NMA and cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that LEVA is the favorite choice in the first-line treatment of Chinese aHCC patients and US payers' perspective when the WTP was $11101.70/QALY in China and $69375.0/QALY in the United States. Registration: This study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42021286575. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) does not recommend routine mammogram screening for women aged 40–49 years at average risk for breast cancer. We aimed to assess the extent to which women were following guideline recommendations and to examine whether guideline awareness and other individual-level factors were associated with adherence. Materials and Methods: We surveyed a nationally representative panel of 383 U.S. women aged 40–49 years at low risk for hereditary breast cancer in October 2019. Results: Only 29% of women reported not having initiated screening mammography. Most women (80%) were unaware of the USPSTF screening guideline related to age of initiation and frequency of mammography. Being aware of the recommendation to initiate screening at age 50 increased the odds of not initiating screening (odds ratio [OR] = 6.70, p < 0.001), whereas being older than 45 years (OR = 0.22, p < 0.001) and having a primary care doctor decreased the odds of not initiating screening (OR = 0.25, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Mammogram screening in excess of USPSTF recommendations is prevalent among U.S. women aged 40–49 years. Efforts are needed to increase women's awareness of the rationale for guidelines and the opportunities to discuss with providers whether delaying mammograms is appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite efforts to increase the availability of clinical genetic testing and counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian (HBOC)-related cancers, these services remain underutilized in clinical settings. There have been few efforts to understand the public's use of cancer genetic services, particularly for HBOC-related cancers. This analysis is based on data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a U.S.-based nationwide probability sample, to better understand the public's use of HBOC-related clinical cancer genetic services. Bivariate analyses were used to compute percentages and examine the associations of familial cancer risk for three genetic services outcomes (ever had genetic counseling for cancer risk, ever discussed genetic testing for cancer risk with a provider, and ever had genetic testing for cancer risk). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of familial cancer risk and other demographic and health variables with genetic services. Most women (87.67%) in this study were at low risk based on self-reported family history of breast and ovarian cancer, 10.65% were at medium risk, and 1.68% were at high risk. Overall, very small numbers of individuals had ever had genetic counseling (2.78%), discussed genetic testing with their physician (4.55%) or had genetic testing (1.64%). Across all genetic services outcomes, individuals who were at higher familial risk were more likely to have had genetic counseling than those at lower risk (high risk: aOR = 5.869, 95% CI = 2.911–11.835; medium risk: aOR = 4.121, 95% CI = 2.934–5.789), discussed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 5.133, 95% CI = 2.699–9.764; medium risk: aOR = 3.649, 95% CI = 2.696–4.938), and completed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 8.531, 95% CI = 3.666–19.851; medium risk aOR = 3.057, 95% CI = 1.835–5.094). Those who perceived themselves as being more likely to develop cancer than the average woman were more likely to engage in genetic counseling (aOR = 1.916, 95% CI = 1.334–2.752), discuss genetic testing (aOR = 3.314, 95% CI = 2.463–4.459) or have had genetic testing (aOR = 1.947, 95% CI = 1.13–3.54). Personal cancer history was also a significant predictor of likelihood to have engaged in genetic services. Our findings highlight: (1) potential under-utilization of cancer genetic services among high risk populations in the U.S. and (2) differences in genetic services use based on individual's characteristics such as self-reported familial risk, personal history, and beliefs about risk of cancer. These results align with other studies which have noted that awareness and use of genetic services are low in the general population and likely not reaching individuals who could benefit most from screening for inherited cancers. Efforts to promote public awareness of familial cancer risk may lead to better uptake of cancer genetic services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diabetes mellitus is a group of diseases characterized by hyperglycemia and its consequences, affecting over 34 million individuals in the United States and 422 million worldwide. While most diabetes is polygenic and is classified as type 1 (T1D), type 2 (T2D), or gestational diabetes (GDM), at least 0.4% of all diabetes is monogenic in nature. Correct diagnosis of monogenic diabetes has important implications for glycemic management and genetic counseling. We provide this Practice Resource to familiarize the genetic counseling community with (1) the existence of monogenic diabetes, (2) how it differs from more common polygenic/complex diabetes types, (3) the advantage of a correct diagnosis, and (4) guidance for identifying, counseling, and testing patients and families with suspected monogenic diabetes. This document is intended for genetic counselors and other healthcare professionals providing clinical services in any setting, with the goal of maximizing the likelihood of a correct diagnosis of monogenic diabetes and access to related care., (© 2023 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)