Targeted BRCA1/2 population screening among Ashkenazi Jewish individuals using a web-enabled medical model: An observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate uptake and follow-up using internet-assisted population genetic testing (GT) for BRCA1/2 Ashkenazi Jewish founder pathogenic variants (AJPVs). METHODS: Across 4 cities in the United States, from December 2017 to March 2020, individuals aged ≥25 years with ≥1 Ashkenazi Jewish grandparent were offered enrollment. Participants consented and enrolled online with chatbot and video education, underwent BRCA1/2 AJPV GT, and chose to receive results from their primary care provider (PCP) or study staff. Surveys were conducted at baseline, at 12 weeks, and annually for 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 5193 participants enrolled and 4109 (79.1%) were tested (median age = 54, female = 77.1%). Upon enrollment, 35.1% of participants selected a PCP to disclose results, and 40.5% of PCPs agreed. Of those tested, 138 (3.4%) were AJPV heterozygotes of whom 21 (15.2%) had no significant family history of cancer, whereas 86 (62.3%) had a known familial pathogenic variant. At 12 weeks, 85.5% of participants with AJPVs planned increased cancer screening; only 3.7% with negative results and a significant family history reported further testing. CONCLUSION: Although continued follow-up is needed, internet-enabled outreach can expand access to targeted GT using a medical model. Observed challenges for population genetic screening efforts include recruitment barriers, improving PCP engagement, and increasing uptake of additional testing when indicated.

Challenges and Opportunities in Engaging Primary Care Providers in BRCA Testing: Results from the BFOR Study.

PURPOSE: Engaging primary care providers (PCPs) in BRCA1/2 testing and results disclosure would increase testing access. The BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study is a prospective study of BRCA1/2 founder mutation screening among individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent that sought to involve participants' PCPs in results disclosure. We used quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate PCPs' perspectives, knowledge, and experience disclosing results in BFOR. METHODS: Among PCPs nominated by BFOR participants to disclose BRCA1/2 results, we assessed the proportion agreeing to disclose. To examine PCP's perspectives, knowledge, and willingness to disclose results, we surveyed 501 nominated PCPs. To examine PCPs' experiences disclosing results in BFOR, we surveyed 101 PCPs and conducted 10 semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: In the BFOR study overall, PCPs agreed to disclose their patient's results 40.5% of the time. Two hundred thirty-four PCPs (46.7%) responded to the initial survey. Responding PCPs were more likely to agree to disclose patients' results than non-responders (57.3% vs. 28.6%, p<0.001). Among all respondents, most felt very (19.7%) or somewhat (39.1%) qualified to share results. Among PCPs declining to disclose, insufficient knowledge was the most common reason. In multivariable logistic regression, feeling qualified was the only variable significantly associated with agreeing to disclose results (OR 6.53, 95% CI 3.31, 12.88). In post-disclosure surveys (response rate=55%), PCPs reported largely positive experiences. Interview findings suggested that although PCPs valued the study-provided educational materials, they desired better integration of results and decision support into workflows. CONCLUSION: Barriers exist to incorporating BRCA1/2 testing into primary care. Most PCPs declined to disclose their patients' BFOR results, although survey respondents were motivated and had positive disclosure experiences. PCP training and integrated decision support could be beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03351803), November 24, 2017.

Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is needed regarding effective incentive strategies to increase clinician survey response rates. Cash cards are increasingly used as survey incentives; they are appealing because of their convenience and because in some cases their value can be reclaimed by investigators if not used. However, their effectiveness in clinician surveys is not known. In this study within the BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study, a clinical trial of population-based BRCA1/2 mutation screening, we compared the use of upfront cash cards requiring email activation versus checks as clinician survey incentives. METHODS: Participants receiving BRCA1/2 testing in the BFOR study could elect to receive their results from their primary care provider (PCP, named by the patient) or from a geneticist associated with the study. In order to understand PCPs' knowledge, attitudes, experiences and willingness to disclose results we mailed paper surveys to the first 501 primary care providers (PCPs) in New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Philadelphia who were nominated by study participants to disclose their BRCA1/2 mutation results obtained through the study. We used alternating assignment stratified by city to assign the first 303 clinicians to receive a $50 up-front incentive as a cash card (N = 155) or check (N = 148). The cash card required PCPs to send an activation email in order to be used. We compared response rates by incentive type, adjusting for PCP characteristics and study site. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, PCPs who received checks were more likely to respond to the survey than those who received cash cards (54.1% versus 41.9%, p = 0.046); this remained true when we adjusted for provider characteristics (OR for checks 1.61, 95% CI 1.01, 2.59). No other clinician characteristics had a statistically significant association with response rates in adjusted analyses. When we included an interaction term for incentive type and city, the favorable impact of checks on response rates was evident only in Los Angeles and Philadelphia. CONCLUSIONS: An up-front cash card incentive requiring email activation may be less effective in eliciting clinician responses than up-front checks. However, the benefit of checks for clinician response rates may depend on clinicians' geographic location. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03351803 ), November 24, 2017.

Prospective Analysis of Payment per Hour in Head and Neck Reconstruction: Fiscally Feasible or Futile?

BACKGROUND: The authors assess the fiscal viability of complex head and neck reconstructive surgery by evaluating its financial reimbursement in the setting of resources used. METHODS: The authors prospectively assessed provider reimbursement for consecutive patients undergoing head and neck reconstruction. Total care time was determined by adding 15 minutes to the operative time for each postoperative hospital day and each postoperative follow-up appointment within the 90-day global period. Physician reimbursement was divided by total care time hours to determine an hourly rate of reimbursement. A control group of patients undergoing carpal tunnel release was evaluated using the same methods described. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients met the inclusion criteria for study. The payer was Medicaid for nine patients (18 percent), Medicare for 19 patients (38 percent), and commercial for 22 patients (44 percent). The average provider revenue per case was $3241.01 ± $2500.65. For all patients, the mean operative time was 10.6 ± 3.87 hours and the mean number of postoperative hospital days was 15.1 ± 8.06. The mean reimbursement per total care time hour was $254 ± $199.87. Statistical analysis demonstrated difference in reimbursement per total care time hour when grouped by insurance type (p = 0.002) or flap type (p = 0.033). Of the 50 most recent patients to undergo carpal tunnel release, the average revenue per case was $785.27. CONCLUSION: Total care time analysis demonstrates that physician reimbursement is not commensurate with resources used for complex head and neck reconstructive surgery.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly: increased operative complications and conversions to laparotomy.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of gallstones increases with age and as the proportion of the population 65 years of age and older continues to grow, increased demand for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the geriatric population is likely. LC has advantages over open cholecystectomy, but comparative evaluation of the procedure in elderly patients is lacking. METHODS: We performed a two-year review of patients undergoing LC at our institution. Demographic information, diagnosis, operation performed, and operative complications were recorded. Patients were placed into two groups by age: 65 years and older, and those younger than 65 years of age. Primary outcome measures were complication rate and conversions to laparotomy. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients underwent LC during the study period, of whom 59 (19%) were 65 years of age or older. The older age group experienced higher rates of conversion to an open procedure (22% vs. 2.7%, P<0.05), and operative complications (17% vs. 3.1%, P<0.05). Elderly patients also had longer operative times (108+/-55 minutes vs. 83<34 minutes, P<0.05). Acute (31% vs. 16%) and chronic (14% vs. 7.4%) cholecystitis were the operative diagnoses in a greater proportion of patients in the older age group, and elderly patients were more likely to have had prior upper abdominal surgery (8.5% vs. 1.6%, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: LC in the geriatric population carries increased risk for conversion to laparotomy and operative complications compared to LC in younger patients. This is likely due to increased acuity and chronic right upper quadrant inflammation in this population. Surgeons should bear these issues in mind in the counseling and care of these patients.

Influence of resident and attending surgeon seniority on operative performance in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Resident participation in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is important for education but increases the time of operation. This time cost in training programs is not well-defined, and available data show no decrease in operative time as residents progress in training. We undertook this study to determine the effect of the resident and attending surgeon seniority on the operative performance of LC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We undertook a retrospective review of LCs performed for all indications over two academic years in our training program. Operations were performed by junior (PGY 1-3) or senior (PGY 4-5) residents, assisted by junior (trained after 1994) or senior attending surgeons, none of whom had fellowship training in advanced laparoscopy. Demographics, surgeon, assistant, operative time, and operative complications were recorded. Operative diagnoses were defined as noninflammatory (biliary colic, dyskinesia, or polyps) or inflammatory (cholecystitis, pancreatitis). The primary outcome was time in minutes from skin incision to closure; secondary outcomes were complications and conversions to laparotomy. ANOVA, Student's t-test, and chi2 tests were used as appropriate with statistical significance attributed to P < 0.05. RESULTS: Three hundred fifteen LCs were performed. Two hundred seventy were without conversion to laparotomy or intraoperative cholangiography and were included in time and complication analysis. Junior attendings averaged 4 and senior attendings averaged 21 postresidency years. No differences were found on univariate analysis between groups in demographics or diagnosis category. Operative times were longer for junior residents irrespective of attending seniority: Jr Res/Jr Staff (n = 65): 86 +/- 32 min; Jr/Sr (n = 78): 88 +/- 38 min; Sr/Jr (n = 52): 73 +/- 27 min; Sr/Sr (n = 75): 67 +/- 24 min (P < 0.05). The overall rate of operative complications was higher in junior than senior resident cases (5.6% versus 0.78%, P < 0.05). The most common complication was cystic duct leak, of which 4/5 occurred in junior resident cases. Senior attendings had a trend toward increased conversions (8.4% versus 3.7%, P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Resident, but not attending surgeon, seniority influences operative time and complication rate in LC. This information may help surgical educators maximize both resident learning and operative efficiency and safety.