Predictors of genetic testing uptake in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many newly diagnosed breast cancer patients do not receive genetic counseling and testing at the time of diagnosis. We examined predictors of genetic testing (GT) in this population. METHODS: Within a randomized controlled trial of proactive rapid genetic counseling and testing vs usual care, patients completed a baseline survey within 6 weeks of breast cancer diagnosis but before a definitive survey. We conducted a multinomial logistic regression to identify predictors of GT timing/uptake. RESULTS: Having discussed GT with a surgeon was a dominant predictor (χ2 (2, N = 320) = 70.13; P < .0001). Among those who discussed GT with a surgeon, patients who had made a final surgery decision were less likely to receive GT before surgery compared with postsurgically (OR [odds ratio] = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.12-0.49) or no testing (OR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.14-0.56). Older patients (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.91-0.99) and participants enrolled in New York/New Jersey (OR = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.07-0.72) were less likely to be tested compared with receiving results before surgery. Those with higher perceived risk (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.00-1.03) were more likely to receive results before surgery than to not be tested. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the role of patient-physician communication about GT as well as patient-level factors that predict presurgical GT.

Attitudes and interest in incorporating BRCA1/2 cancer susceptibility testing into reproductive carrier screening for Ashkenazi Jewish men and women.

Pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genes are associated with elevated cancer risks in men and women. Due to a founder effect, Ashkenazi Jewish individuals are at higher risk for carrying three specific BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. There have been recent calls for population screening in this population because many carriers do not have family histories suggestive of hereditary cancer. One approach could be to integrate optional BRCA1/2 testing into routinely offered reproductive carrier screening for recessive and X-linked disorders. However, the differing goals of these types of testing (i.e., personal health risks versus family planning) raise questions about the implications for patient education and informed consent. To this end, we aimed to determine interest, attitudes, and preferences regarding integrating such testing by electronically surveying 331 Ashkenazi Jewish participants in JScreen - a national, not-for-profit, at-home carrier screening program focused on genetic risks in Jewish communities. We found that while 41% of participants had plans to pursue BRCA1/2 testing, 93% would have opted for such testing if offered as an add-on to reproductive carrier screening. This was particularly true of those with higher perceived cancer risk and more positive attitudes toward genetic testing. With respect to preferences about delivery of this service, more than 85% of participants preferred remote (telephone, print, or web-based) genetic education rather than traditional genetic counseling. These results suggest that offering optional BRCA1/2 testing within the context of reproductive carrier screening might provide opportunities for cancer prevention without overburdening scarce genetic counseling resources.

Telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk: Patient predictors of differential outcomes.

PURPOSE: Telegenetics has become the predominant mode of cancer genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify potential patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic genetic counseling. METHODS: We analyzed post-counseling (pre-result disclosure) follow-up data from a randomized noninferiority trial of a telephone genetic counseling versus usual care genetic counseling. Among 669 randomized participants, 600 completed pre-test counseling and 568 completed a 2-week follow-up assessment before receiving test results. In this analysis, we focused on genetic counseling outcomes (knowledge, decisional conflict, and distress). In multivariate models controlling for bivariate predictors of these outcomes, we tested our a priori hypotheses that pre-counseling numeracy, perceived stress, and race/ethnicity would moderate the outcomes of telephone genetic counseling versus usual care. RESULTS: Only numeracy significantly moderated associations between mode of genetic counseling and outcomes. Higher numeracy was associated with higher post-counseling knowledge following telephone genetic counseling (p < 0.001), but not usual care (p = 0.450). Higher numeracy was also associated with lower distress following telephone genetic counseling (p = 0.009) but not usual care (p = 0.16). Neither perceived stress nor race/ethnicity exhibited differential impacts on telephone genetic counseling versus usual care (ps > 0.20). CONCLUSION: Although high numeracy was associated with higher levels of knowledge following telegenetic counseling, we did not identify any clinically significant patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic counseling. These results lend further confidence to the broad use of telegenetics.