Prospective, multi-site study of healthcare utilization after actionable monogenic findings from clinical sequencing.

As large-scale genomic screening becomes increasingly prevalent, understanding the influence of actionable results on healthcare utilization is key to estimating the potential long-term clinical impact. The eMERGE network sequenced individuals for actionable genes in multiple genetic conditions and returned results to individuals, providers, and the electronic health record. Differences in recommended health services (laboratory, imaging, and procedural testing) delivered within 12 months of return were compared among individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) findings to matched individuals with negative findings before and after return of results. Of 16,218 adults, 477 unselected individuals were found to have a monogenic risk for arrhythmia (n = 95), breast cancer (n = 96), cardiomyopathy (n = 95), colorectal cancer (n = 105), or familial hypercholesterolemia (n = 86). Individuals with P/LP results more frequently received services after return (43.8%) compared to before return (25.6%) of results and compared to individuals with negative findings (24.9%; p < 0.0001). The annual cost of qualifying healthcare services increased from an average of $162 before return to $343 after return of results among the P/LP group (p < 0.0001); differences in the negative group were non-significant. The mean difference-in-differences was $149 (p < 0.0001), which describes the increased cost within the P/LP group corrected for cost changes in the negative group. When stratified by individual conditions, significant cost differences were observed for arrhythmia, breast cancer, and cardiomyopathy. In conclusion, less than half of individuals received billed health services after monogenic return, which modestly increased healthcare costs for payors in the year following return.

Predictive Utility of Polygenic Risk Scores for Coronary Heart Disease in Three Major Racial and Ethnic Groups.

Because polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for coronary heart disease (CHD) are derived from mainly European ancestry (EA) cohorts, their validity in African ancestry (AA) and Hispanic ethnicity (HE) individuals is unclear. We investigated associations of "restricted" and genome-wide PRSs with CHD in three major racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. The eMERGE cohort (mean age 48 ± 14 years, 58% female) included 45,645 EA, 7,597 AA, and 2,493 HE individuals. We assessed two restricted PRSs (PRSTikkanen and PRSTada; 28 and 50 variants, respectively) and two genome-wide PRSs (PRSmetaGRS and PRSLDPred; 1.7 M and 6.6 M variants, respectively) derived from EA cohorts. Over a median follow-up of 11.1 years, 2,652 incident CHD events occurred. Hazard and odds ratios for the association of PRSs with CHD were similar in EA and HE cohorts but lower in AA cohorts. Genome-wide PRSs were more strongly associated with CHD than restricted PRSs were. PRSmetaGRS, the best performing PRS, was associated with CHD in all three cohorts; hazard ratios (95% CI) per 1 SD increase were 1.53 (1.46-1.60), 1.53 (1.23-1.90), and 1.27 (1.13-1.43) for incident CHD in EA, HE, and AA individuals, respectively. The hazard ratios were comparable in the EA and HE cohorts (pinteraction = 0.77) but were significantly attenuated in AA individuals (pinteraction= 2.9 × 10-3). These results highlight the potential clinical utility of PRSs for CHD as well as the need to assemble diverse cohorts to generate ancestry- and ethnicity PRSs.

Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Cancers originating in the esophagus or esophagogastric junction constitute a major global health problem. Esophageal cancers are histologically classified as squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma, which differ in their etiology, pathology, tumor location, therapeutics, and prognosis. In contrast to esophageal adenocarcinoma, which usually affects the lower esophagus, esophageal SCC is more likely to localize at or higher than the tracheal bifurcation. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1, has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with locally advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on the management of recurrent or metastatic disease.

Conducting inclusive research in genetics for transgender, gender-diverse, and sex-diverse individuals: Case analyses and recommendations from a clinical genomics study.

A person's phenotypic sex (i.e., endogenous expression of primary, secondary, and endocrinological sex characteristics) can impact crucial aspects of genetic assessment and resulting clinical care recommendations. In studies with genetics components, it is critical to collect phenotypic sex, information about current organ/tissue inventory and hormonal milieu, and gender identity. If researchers do not carefully construct data models, transgender, gender diverse, and sex diverse (TGSD) individuals may be given inappropriate care recommendations and/or be subjected to misgendering, inflicting medical and psychosocial harms. The recognized need for an inclusive care experience should not be limited to clinical practice but should extend to the research setting, where researchers must build an inclusive experience for TGSD participants. Here, we review three TGSD participants in the Family History and Cancer Risk Study (FOREST) to critically evaluate sex- and gender-related survey measures and associated data models in a study seeking to identify patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes. Furthermore, we leverage these participants' responses to sex- and gender identity-related questions in FOREST to inform needed changes to the FOREST data model and to make recommendations for TGSD-inclusive genetics research design, data models, and processes.

Impact of returning unsolicited genomic results to nongenetic health care providers in the eMERGE III Network.

PURPOSE: As genomic sequencing becomes more common, medically actionable secondary findings will increasingly be returned to health care providers (HCPs), who will be faced with managing the resulting patient care. These findings are generally unsolicited, ie, unrelated to the sequencing indication and/or ordered by another clinician. METHODS: To understand the impact of receiving unsolicited results, we interviewed HCPs who received genomic results for patients enrolled in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network, which returned results on >100 actionable genes to eMERGE participants and HCPs. RESULTS: In total, 16 HCPs across 3 eMERGE sites were interviewed about their experience of receiving a positive (likely pathogenic or pathogenic), negative, or variant of uncertain significance result for a patient enrolled in eMERGE Phase III and about managing their patient on the basis of the result. Although unsolicited, HCPs felt responsible for managing the patient's resulting medical care. HCPs indicated that clinical utility depended on the actionability of results, and whereas comfort levels varied, confidence was improved by the availability of subspecialist consults. HCPs were concerned about patient anxiety, insurability, and missing an actionable result in the electronic health record. CONCLUSION: Our findings help inform best practices for return of unsolicited genomic screening findings in the future.

Pathogenic variants in arteriopathy genes detected in a targeted sequencing study: Penetrance and 1-year outcomes after return of results.

PURPOSE: We estimated the penetrance of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in arteriopathy-related genes and assessed near-term outcomes following return of results. METHODS: Participants (N = 24,520) in phase III of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network underwent targeted sequencing of 68 actionable genes, including 9 genes associated with arterial aneurysmal diseases. Penetrance was estimated on the basis of the presence of relevant clinical traits. Outcomes occurring within 1 year of return of results included new diagnoses, referral to a specialist, new tests ordered, surveillance initiated, and new medications started. RESULTS: P/LP variants were present in 34 participants. The average penetrance across genes was 59%, ranging from 86% for FBN1 variants to 25% for SMAD3. Of 16 participants in whom results were returned, 1-year outcomes occurred in 63%. A new diagnosis was made in 44% of the participants, 56% were referred to a specialist, a new test was ordered in 44%, surveillance was initiated in 31%, and a new medication was started in 31%. CONCLUSION: Penetrance of P/LP variants in arteriopathy-related genes, identified in a large, targeted sequencing study, was variable and overall lower than that reported in clinical cohorts. Meaningful outcomes within the first year were noted in 63% of participants who received results.

The reckoning: The return of genomic results to 1444 participants across the eMERGE3 Network.

PURPOSE: The goal of Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network was to return actionable sequence variants to 25,084 consenting participants from 10 different health care institutions across the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate system-based issues relating to the return of results (RoR) disclosure process for clinical grade research genomic tests to eMERGE3 participants. METHODS: RoR processes were developed and approved by each eMERGE institution's internal review board. Investigators at each eMERGE3 site were surveyed for RoR processes related to the participant's disclosure of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and engagement with genetic counseling. Standard statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 25,084 eMERGE participants, 1444 had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified on the eMERGEseq panel of 67 genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of these, 1077 (74.6%) participants had results disclosed, with 562 (38.9%) participants provided with variant-specific genetic counseling. Site-specific processes that either offered or required genetic counseling in their RoR process had an effect on whether a participant ultimately engaged with genetic counseling (P = .0052). CONCLUSION: The real-life experience of the multiarm eMERGE3 RoR study for returning actionable genomic results to consented research participants showed the impact of consent, method of disclosure, and genetic counseling on RoR.

Gastric Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Over 95% of gastric cancers are adenocarcinomas, which are typically classified based on anatomic location and histologic type. Gastric cancer generally carries a poor prognosis because it is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with localized gastric cancer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Gastric Cancer focuses on the management of unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Framework for Implementing and Tracking a Molecular Tumor Board at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Over the past few years, tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels have evolved in complexity and have changed from selected gene panels with a handful of genes to larger panels with hundreds of genes, sometimes in combination with paired germline filtering and/or testing. With this move toward increasingly large NGS panels, we have rapidly outgrown the available literature supporting the utility of treatments targeting many reported gene alterations, making it challenging for oncology providers to interpret NGS results and make a therapy recommendation for their patients. METHODS: To support the oncologists at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (VICC) in interpreting NGS reports for patient care, we initiated two molecular tumor boards (MTBs)-a VICC-specific institutional board for our patients and a global community MTB open to the larger oncology patient population. Core attendees include oncologists, hematologist, molecular pathologists, cancer geneticists, and cancer genetic counselors. Recommendations generated from MTB were documented in a formal report that was uploaded to our electronic health record system. RESULTS: As of December 2020, we have discussed over 170 patient cases from 77 unique oncology providers from VICC and its affiliate sites, and a total of 58 international patient cases by 25 unique providers from six different countries across the globe. Breast cancer and lung cancer were the most presented diagnoses. CONCLUSION: In this article, we share our learning from the MTB experience and document best practices at our institution. We aim to lay a framework that allows other institutions to recreate MTBs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: With the rapid pace of molecularly driven therapies entering the oncology care spectrum, there is a need to create resources that support timely and accurate interpretation of next-generation sequencing reports to guide treatment decision for patients. Molecular tumor boards (MTB) have been created as a response to this knowledge gap. This report shares implementation strategies and best practices from the Vanderbilt experience of creating an institutional MTB and a virtual global MTB for the larger oncology community. This report describe a reproducible framework that can be adopted to initiate MTBs at other institutions.

Neptune: an environment for the delivery of genomic medicine.

PURPOSE: Genomic medicine holds great promise for improving health care, but integrating searchable and actionable genetic data into electronic health records (EHRs) remains a challenge. Here we describe Neptune, a system for managing the interaction between a clinical laboratory and an EHR system during the clinical reporting process. METHODS: We developed Neptune and applied it to two clinical sequencing projects that required report customization, variant reanalysis, and EHR integration. RESULTS: Neptune has been applied for the generation and delivery of over 15,000 clinical genomic reports. This work spans two clinical tests based on targeted gene panels that contain 68 and 153 genes respectively. These projects demanded customizable clinical reports that contained a variety of genetic data types including single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), copy-number variants (CNVs), pharmacogenomics, and polygenic risk scores. Two variant reanalysis activities were also supported, highlighting this important workflow. CONCLUSION: Methods are needed for delivering structured genetic data to EHRs. This need extends beyond developing data formats to providing infrastructure that manages the reporting process itself. Neptune was successfully applied on two high-throughput clinical sequencing projects to build and deliver clinical reports to EHR systems. The software is open source and available at https://gitlab.com/bcm-hgsc/neptune .

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Version 1.2021.

Identifying individuals with hereditary syndromes allows for timely cancer surveillance, opportunities for risk reduction, and syndrome-specific management. Establishing criteria for hereditary cancer risk assessment allows for the identification of individuals who are carriers of pathogenic genetic variants. The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal provides recommendations for the assessment and management of patients at risk for or diagnosed with high-risk colorectal cancer syndromes. The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal panel meets annually to evaluate and update their recommendations based on their clinical expertise and new scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)/attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis (AFAP) syndrome and considerations for management of duodenal neoplasia.

Breast cancer screening implications of risk modeling among female relatives of ATM and CHEK2 carriers.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing use of multigene panel tests, pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants are identified more frequently in the moderate-penetrance breast cancer genes ATM and CHEK2. Lifetime breast cancer risk among women with P/LP variants in these genes generally exceeds 20%, meeting the threshold at which high-risk breast cancer screening through breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended. METHODS: Among a registry-based sample of 56 ATM and 69 CHEK2 carriers, the authors sought to determine the percentage of relatives in whom a P/LP variant would impact breast cancer surveillance. Lifetime breast cancer risks for unaffected, female first-degree and second-degree relatives were estimated using the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA). RESULTS: Among first-degree relatives of ATM and CHEK2 carriers, only 22.6% and 14.9%, respectively, were found to have lifetime breast cancer risks of ≥20% based on family cancer history alone; however, when including the proband's P/LP variant in the model, these percentages increased significantly to 56.6% and 55.3%, respectively (P < .0001 and P < .0001, respectively). Similar increases in lifetime breast cancer risks were found among second-degree relatives. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study suggest that the majority of female first-degree and second-degree relatives of ATM and CHEK2 carriers do not qualify for breast MRI based on family cancer history alone. Therefore, testing for these genes, as well as awareness of positive moderate-penetrance breast cancer gene results in the family, may impact MRI eligibility. These findings highlight the potential usefulness of and need for breast cancer risk models that incorporate moderate-penetrance gene positivity to inform screening recommendations among at-risk family members.

A Web-Based Tool to Automate Portions of Pretest Genetic Counseling for Inherited Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Increasing demand for genetic testing for inherited cancer risk coupled with a shortage of providers trained in genetics highlight the potential for automated tools embedded in the clinic process to meet this demand. We developed and tested a scalable, easy-to-use, 12-minute web-based educational tool that included standard pretest genetic counseling elements related to panel-based testing for multiple genes associated with cancer risk. METHODS: The tool was viewed by new patients at the Vanderbilt Hereditary Cancer Clinic before meeting with a board-certified genetics professional. Pre- and post-tool surveys measured knowledge, feeling informed/empowered to decide about testing, attitudinal values about genetic testing, and health literacy. Of the initial 100 participants, 50 were randomized to only have knowledge measured on the post-tool survey to assess for a priming effect. RESULTS: Of 360 patients approached, 305 consented and completed both the pre- and post-tool surveys, with a mean age of 47 years, including 80% female patients and 48% patients with cancer. Survey results showed an increase in knowledge and feeling informed/empowered after viewing the tool (P<.001), but no significant change in attitude (P=.64). Post-tool survey data indicated no difference in median knowledge between low and high health literacy groups (P=.30). No priming effect was present among the initial 100 participants (P=.675). CONCLUSIONS: Viewing the educational tool resulted in significant gains in knowledge across health literacy levels, and most individuals felt informed and empowered to decide about genetic testing. These findings indicate that the use of an automated pretest genetic counseling tool may help streamline the delivery of genetic services.

Patients' willingness to reconsider cancer genetic testing after initially declining: Mention it again.

Patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes sometimes decline clinically appropriate genetic testing. The purpose of the current study was to understand what preferences, concerns, and desires informed their refusal as well as their current level of interest in being tested. We interviewed patients who had been seen in a hereditary cancer clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and had declined genetic testing. In all, 21 in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. Although patients provided many reasons for declining testing, they most often cited their psychosocial state at the time of the initial invitation to participate in genetic testing as their reason for refusal. The majority (67%) said that they either would or had changed their mind about testing if/when their clinicians 'mentioned it again'. Patients at risk for hereditary cancer who refuse testing at the time of genetic counseling may later change their mind. In particular, if a patient declines testing around the time of a major medical diagnosis or intervention, clinicians who are providing ongoing care may want to raise the topic afresh after the patient has had time to recover from initial distress related to diagnosis or treatment. Strategies to prompt clinicians to have these conversations are suggested.

The impact of variant classification on the clinical management of hereditary cancer syndromes.

PURPOSE: The reclassification of genetic variants poses a significant challenge for laboratories and clinicians. Variant review has resulted in the reclassification of variants of unknown significance as well as the reclassification of previously established pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants. These reclassifications have the potential to alter the clinical management of patients with hereditary cancer syndromes. METHODS: Results were reviewed for 1694 patients seen for hereditary cancer evaluation between August 2012 and May 2017 to determine the frequency and types of variant reclassification. Patients with reclassifications with high potential for impact were monitored for alterations in organ surveillance, prophylactic surgery, and cascade testing. RESULTS: One hundred forty-two variants were reclassified representing 124/1694 (7.3%) patients; 11.3% of reclassifications (16/142) had a high potential for clinical impact with 94% (15/16) altering clinical management of patients with 56% (9/16) changing multiple areas of management. CONCLUSION: While reclassifications are rare, the impact on clinical management is profound. In many cases, patients with downgraded pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants had years of unnecessary organ surveillance and underwent unneeded surgical intervention. In addition, cascade testing misidentified those at risk for developing cancers, thereby altering the management across generations. The frequency and types of alterations to clinical management highlight the need for timely variant reclassification.

Physicians' perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results.

PURPOSE: Physicians increasingly receive genomic test results they did not order, which we term "unsolicited genomic results" (UGRs). We asked physicians how they think such results will affect them and their patients. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with adult and pediatric primary care and subspecialty physicians at four sites affiliated with a large-scale return-of-results project led by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Twenty-five physicians addressed UGRs and (1) perceived need for actionability, (2) impact on patients, (3) health care workflow, (4) return of results process, and (5) responsibility for results. RESULTS: Physicians prioritize actionability of UGRs and the need for clear, evidence-based "paths" for action coupled with clinical decision support (CDS). They identified potential harms to patients including anxiety, false reassurance, and clinical disutility. Clinicians worried about anticipated workflow issues including responding to UGRs and unreimbursed time. They disagreed about who was responsible for responding to UGRs. CONCLUSION: The prospect of receiving UGRs for otherwise healthy patients raises important concerns for physicians. Their responses informed development of an in-depth survey for physicians following return of UGRs. Strategic workflow integration of UGRs will likely be necessary to empower physicians to serve their patients effectively.

Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Esophageal cancer is the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common histology in Eastern Europe and Asia, and adenocarcinoma is most common in North America and Western Europe. Surgery is a major component of treatment of locally advanced resectable esophageal and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer, and randomized trials have shown that the addition of preoperative chemoradiation or perioperative chemotherapy to surgery significantly improves survival. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, ramucirumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with esophageal and EGJ cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on recommendations for the management of locally advanced and metastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and EGJ.

Recommended care and care adherence following a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome. This study assesses trends in diagnosis of LS and adherence to recommended LS-related care in a large integrated healthcare organization (~ 575,000 members). METHODS: Electronic medical record (EMR) data (1999-2015) were examined to identify patients with a diagnosis of LS. We examined their LS-associated care recommendations and adherence to these recommendations. Qualitative patient and provider interviews were conducted with the aim of identifying opportunities for improved care delivery. RESULTS: We identified 74 patients with a diagnosis of LS; 64% were diagnosed with a LS-related malignancy prior to their diagnosis of LS. The time to LS diagnosis following development of a LS-related cancer decreased over time: before 2009 11% of individuals received a diagnosis of LS within 1 year of developing a LS-related cancer compared to 83% after 2009 (p < 0.0001). Colonoscopy recommendations were documented in the EMR for almost all patients with LS (96%). Documentation of other recommendations for cancer surveillance was less commonly found. Overall, patient adherence to colonoscopy was high (M = 81.5%; SD = 32.7%), and adherence to other recommendations varied. To improve care coordination, patients and providers suggested providing automated reminder prompts for LS-related surveillance, adding a LS-specific diagnosis code, and providing guidelines for LS-related surveillance in the EMR. CONCLUSIONS: We identified fewer than expected patients with LS in our large care system, indicating that there is still a diagnostic care gap. However, patients with LS were likely to receive and follow CRC surveillance recommendations. Recommendations for and adherence to extracolonic surveillance were variable. Improved care coordination and clearer documentation of the LS diagnosis is needed.

Patient and provider perspectives on adherence to and care coordination of lynch syndrome surveillance recommendations: findings from qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a genetic variant associated with Lynch syndrome (LS) are recommended to undergo frequent and repeated cancer surveillance activities to minimize cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Little is known about how patients and primary care providers (PCPs) track and manage these recommendations. We conducted a small exploratory study of patient and PCP experiences with recommended LS surveillance activities and communication with family members in an integrated health care system. METHODS: We used in-depth interviews with patients and providers to understand how surveillance is coordinated and monitored following confirmation of LS. We recruited patients with a range of ages/gender, and providers with at least at least one patient with a molecular diagnosis of LS. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed by a trained qualitative methodologist. RESULTS: Twenty-two interviews were completed with 12 patients and 10 providers. Most patients (10) had detailed knowledge of surveillance recommendations, but were less sure of time intervals. While all patients reported receiving initial education about their surveillance recommendations from a genetic counselor, seven did not follow-up with a genetic counselor in subsequent years. A third of patients described taking sole responsibility for managing their LS surveillance care. Lack of routine communication from the health system (e.g., prompts for surveillance activities), and provider engagement were surveillance barriers. PCPs were generally aware of LS, but had limited familiarity with surveillance recommendations. Most PCPs (7) viewed LS as rare and relied on patient and specialist expertise and support. Providers typically had 1 patient with LS in a panel of 1800 patients overall. Providers felt strongly that management of LS should be coordinated by a dedicated team of specialists. Most patients (92%) had at least one family member that sought LS testing, and common barriers for family members included lack of insurance, affordability, and fear of result. CONCLUSION: The maximal benefits of screening for confirmation of LS will only be realized with adherence to recommended preventive care. Important factors to ensure patients receive recommended LS care include a comprehensive and coordinated monitoring program that includes reminder prompts, and increased PCP education of LS and associated surveillance recommendations.