Uptake of Cascade Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the uptake of cascade genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Among 30 studies included for meta-analysis, the uptake of cascade genetic testing was 33% (95% CI 25%-42%), with higher uptake rates among females compared with male relatives, and among first-degree compared with second-degree relatives. These findings indicate suboptimal uptake of cascade genetic testing among people at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, representing a missed opportunity for cancer prevention and early detection. There is a need for interventions to improve uptake rates.

Timely targeted testing for hereditary cancer syndromes - Importance of clinician-facilitated cascade testing in the first year post-diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: Cascade testing for hereditary cancer syndromes allows relatives to estimate cancer risk and pursue prevention and early detection strategies. The current paradigm relies on patient coordinated care, resulting in only one-third of relatives successfully completing testing. Studies suggest that team-based approaches, where clinicians facilitate testing, can increase uptake. As institutions consider implementing such programs, understanding patient characteristics associated with interest is crucial for resource allocation. We aim to assess interest in clinician-facilitated testing and evaluate barriers. METHODS: Patients with cancer-associated pathogenic variants seen at a gynecologic oncology clinic were offered clinician-facilitated cascade testing. Patient interest and demographic variables were recorded and patients that declined were interviewed regarding the decision. RESULTS: From 11/2023-4/2024, 139 patients were offered clinician-facilitated cascade testing. Median patient age was 43 years (IQR 17), 97 (69.8 %) self-identified as White and 101 (72.7 %) as non-Hispanic. Fifty-six (40.3 %) patients harbored a BRCA1 pathogenic variant, 37 (26.6 %) BRCA2, and 46 (33.1 %) other cancer-associated genes. Fifty-seven (41.0 %) patients expressed interest in the intervention. Interested patients were more likely to have been diagnosed in the prior year vs. patients who were not interested on univariate (OR 4.6, 95 % CI 2.0-10.2, P = 0.0002) and multivariable analyses (adjusted OR 3.8, 95 % CI 1.622-9.009, P = 0.0022). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that patients are almost five time more likely to be interested in cascade genetic testing within the first year of diagnosis of a pathogenic variant. Given the utility of such programs and their resource requirements, targeting this population could maximize effectiveness and uptake of cascade services.

Protocol for Health Risk Information Technology-Assisted Genetic Evaluation (HeRITAGE): a randomised controlled trial of digital genetic cancer risk assessment in a diverse underserved gynaecology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: In the USA, up to 95% of individuals harbouring cancer-predisposing germline pathogenic variants have not been identified despite recommendations for screening at the primary care level. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our primary objective is to use a two-arm, single-institution randomised controlled trial to compare the proportion of eligible patients that are recommended genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes using a digital tool versus clinician interview for genetic cancer risk assessment in an urban academic gynaecology clinic. New gynaecology patients will be consented and randomised 1:1 to either the intervention arm, in which a digital tool is used for genetic cancer risk assessment, or usual care, in which the clinician performs genetic cancer risk assessment. Individuals will be considered eligible for hereditary cancer syndrome genetic testing if criteria set forth by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology are met. Eligible patients are 18 years or older, speak and read English, have not yet undergone hereditary cancer genetic testing and have access to a smartphone. The study aims to enrol 50 patients in each arm to allow for 80% power with two-tailed alpha of 5% to detect a 20% difference in proportion of eligible patients recommended for genetic testing. The primary outcome is the proportion of eligible individuals recommended genetic testing in the digital tool arm versus usual care arm, analysed using the χ2 or Fisher's exact test as appropriate for sample size. The secondary outcome is completion of genetic testing, as well as exploration of patient factors, particularly social determinants of health, which may affect the receipt, utilisation and experience with genetic services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Weill Cornell Institutional Review Board (Protocol No. 21-11024123). Participants will be informed of the benefits and risks of participation prior to consent. Dissemination of data will be deidentified and conducted through academic conferences and journals. Patients identified to be eligible for genetic testing who did not receive counselling from their providers will be contacted; participants will not receive direct notification of trial results. REGISTRATION DETAILS: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05562778) in September 2022. PROTOCOL VERSION: This is protocol version 1, as of 22 May 2024. COUNTRIES OF RECRUITMENT AND RECRUITMENT STATUS: USA, currently recruiting. HEALTH CONDITIONS/PROBLEMS STUDIED: Genetic predisposition to cancers such as breast, ovarian, uterine and pancreatic. DEIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL CLINICAL TRIAL PARTICIPANT-LEVEL DATA IDP SHARING STATEMENT: IDP will not be shared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05562778.

Integration and usability of a digital cancer risk stratification tool to optimize identification of patients at risk for hereditary cancers: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a personal or family history of cancer may have elevated risk of developing future cancers, which often remains unrecognized due to lapses in screening. This pilot study assessed the usability and clinical outcomes of a cancer risk stratification tool in a gynecologic oncology clinic. METHODS: New gynecologic oncology patients were prompted to complete a commercially developed personal and family history-based risk stratification tool to assess eligibility for genetic testing using National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and estimated lifetime breast cancer risk using the Tyrer-Cuzick model. After use of the risk stratification tool, usability was assessed via completion rate and the System Usability Scale, and health literacy was assessed using the BRIEF Health Literacy Screening Tool. RESULTS: 130 patients were prompted to complete the risk stratification tool; 93 (72%) completed the tool. Race and ethnicity and insurance type were not associated with tool completion. The median System Usability Scale score was 83 out of 100 (interquartile range, 60-95). Health literacy positively correlated with perceived usability. Public insurance and race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White was associated with lower perceived usability. Sixty (65%) patients met eligibility criteria for genetic testing, and 21 (38% of 56 eligible patients) were candidates for enhanced breast cancer screening based on an estimated lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥20%. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients completed the digital cancer risk stratification tool. Older age, lower health literacy, public insurance, and race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White were associated with lower perceived tool usability.

Personalized survivorship care: Routine breast cancer risk assessment in the gynecologic oncology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Gynecologic and breast cancers share several risk factors. Breast cancer risk assessment tools can identify those at elevated risk and allow for enhanced breast surveillance and chemoprevention, however such tools are underutilized. We aim to evaluate the use of routine breast cancer risk assessment in a gynecologic oncology clinic. METHODS: A patient-facing web-based tool was used to collect personal and family history and run four validated breast cancer risk assessment models (Tyrer-Cuzick (TC), Gail, BRCAPRO, and Claus) in a gynecologic oncology clinic. We evaluated completion of the tools and identification of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer using the four validated models. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients were included in this analysis. The BRCAPRO model had the highest completion rate (84.8%), followed by the TC model (74.7%), Gail model (74.7%), and the Claus model (52.1%). The TC model identified 21.6% of patients completing the model as having ≥20% lifetime risk of breast cancer, compared to 6.8% by the Gail model, and 0% for both the BRCAPRO and Claus models. The Gail model identified 52.5% of patients as having ≥1.67% 5-year risk of breast cancer. Among patients identified as high-risk for breast cancer and eligible for screening, 9/9 (100%) were referred to a high-risk breast clinic. CONCLUSION: Among patients that completed the TC breast cancer risk assessment in a gynecologic oncology clinic, approximately 1 in 5 were identified to be at significantly elevated lifetime risk for breast cancer. The gynecologic oncologist's office might offer a convenient and feasible setting to incorporate this risk assessment into routine patient care, as gynecologic oncologists often have long-term patient relationships and participate in survivorship care.