On-Site Nurse-Led Cancer Genetics Program Increases Cancer Genetic Testing Completion in Black Veterans.

PURPOSE: Telegenetics services can expand access to guideline-recommended cancer genetic testing. However, access is often not distributed equitably to all races and ethnicities. We evaluated the impact of an on-site nurse-led cancer genetics service in a diverse Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) oncology clinic on likelihood of germline testing (GT) completion. METHODS: We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study of patients who were referred for cancer genetics services at the Philadelphia VAMC between October 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022. We evaluated the association between genetics service (on-site v telegenetics) and likelihood of GT completion in a subcohort of new consults, excluding patients with prior consults and those referred for known history of germline mutations. RESULTS: A total of 238 Veterans, including 108 (45%) seen on site, were identified for cancer genetics services during the study period, with the majority referred for a personal (65%) or family (26%) history of cancer. In the subcohort of new consults, 121 Veterans (54% self-identified race/ethnicity [SIRE]-Black), including 60 (50%) seen on site, were included in the analysis of germline genetic testing completion. In a univariate analysis, patients who were seen by the on-site genetics service had 3.2-fold higher likelihood of completing GT (relative risk, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.89 to 5.48) compared with the telegenetics service. In multivariable regression analysis, the on-site genetics service was associated with higher likelihood of GT completion, but this association was only statistically significant in SIRE-Black compared with SIRE-White Veterans (adjusted RR, 4.78; 95% CI, 1.53 to 14.96; P < .001; P-interaction of race × genetics service = .016). CONCLUSION: An on-site nurse-led cancer genetics service embedded in a VAMC Oncology practice was associated with higher likelihood of germline genetic testing completion than a telegenetics service among self-identified Black Veterans.

Genetics professionals are key to the integration of genetic testing within the practice of frontline clinicians.

PURPOSE: Genetic tests have become widely available. We sought to understand the use of genetic tests in the practice of frontline clinicians within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). METHODS: We administered a web-based survey to clinicians at 20 VA facilities. Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists were eligible. We excluded genetics providers and clinicians not seeing patients. We used multiple logistic regression to evaluate the associations between clinician characteristics and experience with genetics. RESULTS: The response rate was 11.3% (1207/10,680) and of these, 909 respondents were eligible. Only 20.8% of the respondents reported feeling prepared to use genetic tests and 13.0% of the respondents were currently ordering genetic tests; although, it was usually only 1 or 2 a year. Delivery of genetic tests without involving genetics providers was preferred by only 7.9% of the respondents. Characteristics positively associated with currently ordering genetic tests included practice in clinical and research settings, believing improving genetics knowledge could alter their practice, feeling prepared to use genetic tests, and referral of at least 1 patient to genetics in the past year. CONCLUSION: Most VA clinicians don't feel prepared to use genetic tests. Those with genetic testing experience are more likely to consult genetics providers. The demand for genetics providers should increase as frontline clinicians use genetic tests in their practice.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Family Health History Platform to Identify and Manage Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining comprehensive family health history (FHH) to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) risk management in primary care settings is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk. DESIGN: Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk. INTERVENTIONS: Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later. MAIN MEASURES: McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively. KEY RESULTS: Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed. CONCLUSIONS: FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336.

Genetic counselors' experience with reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket cost for multi-cancer gene panel testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.

Multi-cancer gene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (hereditary cancer panels, HCPs) are widely available, and some laboratories have programs that limit patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) cost share. However, little is known about practices by cancer genetic counselors for discussing and ordering an HCP and how insurance reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket share impact these practices. We conducted a survey of cancer genetic counselors based in the United States through the National Society of Genetic Counselors to assess the impact of reimbursement and patient OOP share on ordering of an HCP and hereditary cancer genetic counseling. Data analyses were conducted using chi-square and t tests. We received 135 responses (16% response rate). We found that the vast majority of respondents (94%, 127/135) ordered an HCP for patients rather than single-gene tests to assess hereditary cancer predisposition. Two-thirds of respondents reported that their institution had no protocol related to discussing HCPs with patients. Most respondents (84%, 114/135) indicated clinical indications and patients' requests as important in selecting and ordering HCPs, while 42%, 57/135, considered reimbursement and patient OOP share factors important. We found statistically significant differences in reporting of insurance as a frequently used payment method for HCPs and in-person genetic counseling (84% versus 59%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Perceived patient willingness to pay more than $100 was significantly higher for HCPs than for genetic counseling(41% versus 22%, respectively, p < 0.01). In sum, genetic counselors' widespread selection and ordering of HCPs is driven more by clinical indications and patient preferences than payment considerations. Respondents perceived that testing is more often reimbursed by insurance than genetic counseling, and patients are more willing to pay for an HCP than for genetic counseling. Policy efforts should address this incongruence in reimbursement and patient OOP share. Patient-centered communication should educate patients on the benefit of genetic counseling.

Demographic Differences Among US Department of Veterans Affairs Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation to a Centralized VA Telehealth Program, VA Medical Centers, or the Community.

Importance: Telehealth enables access to genetics clinicians, but impact on care coordination is unknown. Objective: To assess care coordination and equity of genetic care delivered by centralized telehealth and traditional genetic care models. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included patients referred for genetic consultation from 2010 to 2017 with 2 years of follow-up in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Patients were excluded if they were referred for research, cytogenetic, or infectious disease testing, or if their care model could not be determined. Exposures: Genetic care models, which included VA-telehealth (ie, a centralized team of genetic counselors serving VA facilities nationwide), VA-traditional (ie, a regional service by clinical geneticists and genetic counselors), and non-VA care (ie, community care purchased by the VA). Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariate regression models were used to assess associations between patient and consultation characteristics and the type of genetic care model referral; consultation completion; and having 0, 1, or 2 or more cancer surveillance (eg, colonoscopy) and risk-reducing procedures (eg, bilateral mastectomy) within 2 years following referral. Results: In this study, 24 778 patients with genetics referrals were identified, including 12 671 women (51.1%), 13 193 patients aged 50 years or older (53.2%), 15 639 White patients (63.1%), and 15 438 patients with cancer-related referrals (62.3%). The VA-telehealth model received 14 580 of the 24 778 consultations (58.8%). Asian patients, American Indian or Alaskan Native patients, and Hawaiian or Pacific Islander patients were less likely to be referred to VA-telehealth than White patients (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84) compared with the VA-traditional model. Completing consultations was less likely with non-VA care than the VA-traditional model (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57); there were no differences in completing consultations between the VA models. Black patients were less likely to complete consultations than White patients (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76-0.93), but only if referred to the VA-telehealth model. Patients were more likely to have multiple cancer preventive procedures if they completed their consultations (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.40-1.72) but only if their consultations were completed with the VA-traditional model. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the VA-telehealth model was associated with improved access to genetics clinicians but also with exacerbated health care disparities and hindered care coordination. Addressing structural barriers and the needs and preferences of vulnerable subpopulations may complement the centralized telehealth approach, improve care coordination, and help mitigate health care disparities.

Influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings.

The landscape of payment for genetic testing has been changing, with an increase in the number of laboratories offering testing, larger panel offerings, and lower prices. To determine the influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on the ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings, we conducted semi-structured interviews with providers who conduct genetic counseling and order next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels purposefully recruited from 11 safety-net clinics and academic medical centers (AMCs) in California and North Carolina, states with diverse populations and divergent Medicaid expansion policies. Thematic analysis was done to identify themes related to the impact of reimbursement and out-of-pocket expenses on test ordering. Specific focus was put on differences between settings. Respondents from both safety-net clinics and AMCs reported that they are increasingly ordering panels instead of single-gene tests, and tests were ordered primarily from a few commercial laboratories. Surprisingly, safety-net clinics reported few barriers to testing related to cost, largely due to laboratory assistance with prior authorization requests and patient payment assistance programs that result in little to no patient out-of-pocket expenses. AMCs reported greater challenges navigating insurance issues, particularly prior authorization. Both groups cited non-coverage of genetic counseling as a major barrier to testing. Difficulty of access to cascade testing, particularly for family members that do not live in the United States, was also of concern. Long-term sustainability of laboratory payment assistance programs was a major concern; safety-net clinics were particularly concerned about access to testing without such programs. There were few differences between states. In conclusion, the use of laboratories with payment assistance programs reduces barriers to NGS panel testing among diverse populations. Such programs represent a major change to the financing and affordability of genetic testing. However, access to genetic counseling is a barrier and must be addressed to ensure equity in testing.

Primary care providers' responses to unsolicited Lynch syndrome secondary findings of varying clinical significance.

PURPOSE: How primary care providers (PCPs) respond to genomic secondary findings (SFs) of varying clinical significance (pathogenic, uncertain significance [VUS], or benign) is unknown. METHODS: We randomized 148 American Academy of Family Physicians members to review three reports with varying significance for Lynch syndrome. Participants provided open-ended responses about the follow-up they would address and organized the SF reports and five other topics in the order they would prioritize responding to them (1 = highest priority, 6 = lowest priority). RESULTS: PCPs suggested referrals more often for pathogenic variants or VUS than benign variants (72% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). PCPs were also more likely to address further workup, like a colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy, in response to pathogenic variants or VUS than benign variants (43% vs. 4%, p < 0.001). The likelihoods of addressing referrals or further workup were similar when PCPs reviewed pathogenic variants and VUS (both p > 0.46). SF reports were prioritized highest for pathogenic variants (2.7 for pathogenic variants, 3.6 for VUS, 4.3 for benign variants, all p ≤ 0.014). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that while PCPs appreciated the differences in clinical significance, disclosure of VUS as SFs would substantially increase downstream health-care utilization.

Laboratory business models and practices: implications for availability and access to germline genetic testing.

PURPOSE: Germline testing laboratories have evolved over several decades. We describe laboratory business models and practices and explore their implications on germline testing availability and access. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with key informants using purposive sampling. We interviewed 13 key informants representing 14 laboratories. We used triangulation and iterative data analysis to identify topics concerning laboratory business models and practices. RESULTS: We characterized laboratories as full-service (FSL), for-profit germline (PGL), and not-for-profit germline (NGL). Relying on existing payer contracts is a key characteristic of the FSL business models. FSLs focus on high-volume germline tests with evidence of clinical utility that have reimbursable codes. In comparison, a key business model characteristic of PGLs is direct patient billing facilitated by commodity-based pricing made possible by investors and industry partnerships. Client billing is a key business model characteristic of NGLs. Because many NGLs exist within academic settings, they are challenged by their inability to optimize laboratory processes and billing practices. CONCLUSION: Continued availability of, and access to germline testing will depend on the financial success of laboratories; organizational characteristics of laboratories and payers; cultural factors, particularly consumer interest and trust; and societal factors, such as regulation and laws surrounding pricing and reimbursement.

Identifying End Users' Preferences about Structuring Pharmacogenetic Test Orders in an Electronic Health Record System.

Pharmacogenetics (PGx) testing can be used for detecting genetic variations that may affect an individual's anticipated metabolism of, or response to, medications. Although several studies have focused on developing tools for delivering results from PGx testing, there is a relative dearth of information about how to design provider-friendly electronic order-entry systems for PGx. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is preparing to implement a new electronic health records system. In this study, VA PGx test end users were surveyed about their preferences for how electronic test orders for PGx should be structured, including the nomenclature that should be used to search for and identify PGx-test orders, whether to offer single- versus multigene tests, and whether information about test methodology should be included in the order name. Responses were analyzed systematically to identify areas of agreement and disagreement with the survey options, and areas where respondents' opinions diverged. End users endorsed preferences for flexible ways to identify and order PGx tests and multigene panel tests; opinions on whether test methodology should be included in the test name were divergent. The results could be used for both informing the VA's new electronic health records implementation (including how PGx tests are searched for and ordered) and for providing insights for other health systems implementing PGx-testing programs.

Integrating Germline Genetics Into Precision Oncology Practice in the Veterans Health Administration: Challenges and Opportunities.

OBJECTIVES: The advent of germline testing as a standard-of-care practice for certain tumor types and patients presents unique opportunities and challenges for the field of precision oncology. This article describes strategies to address workforce capacity, organizational structure, and genetics education needs within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with the expectation that these approaches may be applicable to other health care systems. OBSERVATIONS: Germline information can have health, reproductive, and psychosocial implications for veterans and their family members, which can pose challenges when delivering germline information in the setting of cancer care. Additional challenges include the complexity inherent in the interpretation of germline information, the national shortage of genetics professionals, limited awareness and knowledge about genetic principles among many clinicians, and organizational barriers, such as the inability to order genetic tests and receive results in the electronic health record. These challenges demand thoughtful implementation planning at the health care system level to develop sustainable strategies for the delivery of high-quality genetic services in precision oncology practice. CONCLUSIONS: The VA is uniquely positioned to address the integration of germline genetic testing into precision oncology practice due to its outsized role in treating veterans with cancer, training the health care workforce, and developing, testing, and implementing innovative models of clinical care.

Systematic evidence-based review: outcomes from exome and genome sequencing for pediatric patients with congenital anomalies or intellectual disability.

PURPOSE: Exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) are performed frequently in patients with congenital anomalies, developmental delay, or intellectual disability (CA/DD/ID), but the impact of results from ES/GS on clinical management and patient outcomes is not well characterized. A systematic evidence review (SER) can support future evidence-based guideline development for use of ES/GS in this patient population. METHODS: We undertook an SER to identify primary literature from January 2007 to March 2019 describing health, clinical, reproductive, and psychosocial outcomes resulting from ES/GS in patients with CA/DD/ID. A narrative synthesis of results was performed. RESULTS: We retrieved 2654 publications for full-text review from 7178 articles. Only 167 articles met our inclusion criteria, and these were primarily case reports or small case series of fewer than 20 patients. The most frequently reported outcomes from ES/GS were changes to clinical management or reproductive decision-making. Two studies reported on the reduction of mortality or morbidity or impact on quality of life following ES/GS. CONCLUSION: There is evidence that ES/GS for patients with CA/DD/ID informs clinical and reproductive decision-making, which could lead to improved outcomes for patients and their family members. Further research is needed to generate evidence regarding health outcomes to inform robust guidelines regarding ES/GS in the care of patients with CA/DD/ID.

An electronic family health history tool to identify and manage patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Approximately 3-10% of the population has an increased risk for colorectal cancer due to family history and warrants more frequent or intensive screening. Yet, < 50% of that high-risk population receives guideline-concordant care. Systematic collection of family health history and decision support may improve guideline-concordant screening for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. We seek to test the effectiveness of a web-based, systematic family health history collection tool and decision support platform (MeTree) to improve risk assessment and appropriate management of colorectal cancer risk among patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs primary care practices. METHODS: In this ongoing randomized controlled trial, primary care providers at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the Madison VA Medical Center are randomized to immediate intervention or wait-list control. Veterans are eligible if assigned to enrolled providers, have an upcoming primary care appointment, and have no conditions that would place them at increased risk for colorectal cancer (such as personal history, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease). Those with a recent lower endoscopy (e.g. colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy) are excluded. Immediate intervention patients put their family health history information into a web-based platform, MeTree, which provides both patient- and provider-facing decision support reports. Wait-list control patients access MeTree 12 months post-consent. The primary outcome is the risk-concordant colorectal cancer screening referral rate obtained via chart review. Secondary outcomes include patient completion of risk management recommendations (e.g. colonoscopy) and referral for genetic consultation. We will also conduct an economic analysis and an assessment of providers' experience with MeTree clinical decision support recommendations to inform future implementation efforts if the intervention is found to be effective. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of patient-collected family health history linked to decision support to promote risk-appropriate screening in a large healthcare system such as the Department of Veterans Affairs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02247336 . Registered on 25 September 2014.

A case of Fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS).

Fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS) is a late onset neurodegenerative disorder associated with dysfunction of movement, memory, and the peripheral nervous system. We report an 82 years old male who presented with tremors and difficulty with balance that started at 65 years of age. His motor examination revealed decreased strength in left lower extremity. Tremors were seen in both the upper limbs at rest that worsened with movement. Bilateral lower extremities showed absent vibration and proprioception sensations, absent reflexes and upgoing toes. Electrodiagnostic studies revealed sensory predominant axonal sensory-motor peripheral polyneuropathy. Brain MRI revealed microvascular ischemic changes. The cervical and lumbar MRI showed diffuse degenerative changes. Genetic test for heritable causes of ataxia revealed a premutation in Fragile X gene (84 CGG repeats), confirming the diagnosis of FXTAS. On further genetic testing three out of his four daughters also tested positive for the FMR1 premutation. In appropriate clinical setting, Fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS) should be considered in every middle aged/elderly patient who presented with slowly progressive ataxia, tremor and peripheral polyneuropathy without any history of cognitive or neurological disabilities in childhood.

Pharmacogenetic testing in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA): policy recommendations from the VHA Clinical Pharmacogenetics Subcommittee.

PURPOSE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Clinical Pharmacogenetics Subcommittee is charged with making recommendations about whether specific pharmacogenetic tests should be used in healthcare at VHA facilities. We describe a process to inform VHA pharmacogenetic testing policy. METHODS: After developing consensus definitions of clinical validity and utility, the Subcommittee identified salient drug-gene pairs with potential clinical application in VHA. Members met monthly to discuss each drug-gene pair, the evidence of clinical utility for the associated pharmacogenetic test, and any VHA-specific testing considerations. The Subcommittee classified each test as strongly recommended, recommended, or not routinely recommended before drug initiation. RESULTS: Of 30 drug-gene pair tests reviewed, the Subcommittee classified 4 (13%) as strongly recommended, including HLA-B*15:02 for carbamazepine-associated Stevens-Johnston syndrome and G6PD for rasburicase-associated hemolytic anemia; 12 (40%) as recommended, including CYP2D6 for codeine toxicity; and 14 (47%) as not routinely recommended, such as CYP2C19 for clopidogrel dosing. CONCLUSION: Only half of drug-gene pairs with high clinical validity received Subcommittee support for policy promoting their widespread use across VHA. The Subcommittee generally found insufficient evidence of clinical utility or available, effective alternative strategies for the remainders. Continual evidence review and rigorous outcomes research will help promote the translation of pharmacogenetic discovery to healthcare.

A logic model for precision medicine implementation informed by stakeholder views and implementation science.

PURPOSE: Precision medicine promises to improve patient outcomes, but much is unknown about its adoption within health-care systems. A comprehensive implementation plan is needed to realize its benefits. METHODS: We convened 80 stakeholders for agenda setting to inform precision medicine policy, delivery, and research. Conference proceedings were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. We mapped themes representing opportunities, challenges, and implementation strategies to a logic model, and two implementation science frameworks provided context. RESULTS: The logic model components included inputs: precision medicine infrastructure (clinical, research, and information technology), big data (from data sources to analytics), and resources (e.g., workforce and funding); activities: precision medicine research, practice, and education; outputs: precision medicine diagnosis; outcomes: personal utility, clinical utility, and health-care utilization; and impacts: precision medicine value, equity and access, and economic indicators. Precision medicine implementation challenges include evidence gaps demonstrating precision medicine utility, an unprepared workforce, the need to improve precision medicine access and reduce variation, and uncertain impacts on health-care utilization. Opportunities include integrated health-care systems, partnerships, and data analytics to support clinical decisions. Examples of implementation strategies to promote precision medicine are: changing record systems, data warehousing techniques, centralized technical assistance, and engaging consumers. CONCLUSION: We developed a theory-based, context-specific logic model that can be used by health-care organizations to facilitate precision medicine implementation.

Stakeholders' views on the value of outcomes from clinical genetic and genomic interventions.

PURPOSE: Robust evidence about the value of clinical genomic interventions (CGIs), such as genetic/genomic testing or clinical genetic evaluation, is limited. We obtained stakeholders' perspectives on outcomes from CGIs to help inform their value. METHODS: We used an adapted Delphi expert panel process. Two anonymous survey rounds assessed the value of 44 CGI outcomes and whether a third party should pay for them, with discussion in between rounds. RESULTS: Sixty-six panelists responded to the first-round survey and 60 to the second. Policy-makers/payers gave the lowest ratings for value and researchers gave the highest. Patients/consumers had the most uncertainty about value and payment by a third party. Uncertainty about value was observed when evidence of proven health benefit was lacking, potential harms outweighed benefits for reproductive outcomes, and outcomes had only personal utility for individuals or family members. Agreement about outcomes for which a third party should not pay included prevention through surgery with unproven health benefits, establishing ancestry, parental consanguinity, and paternity. CONCLUSION: Research is needed to understand factors contributing to uncertainty and stakeholder differences about the value of CGI outcomes. Reaching consensus will accelerate the creation of metrics to generate the evidence needed to inform value and guide policies that promote availability, uptake, and coverage of CGIs.