Aligning policy to promote cascade genetic screening for prevention and early diagnosis of heritable diseases.

Cascade genetic screening is a methodology for identifying and testing close blood relatives of individuals at increased risk for heritable conditions and follows a sequential process, minimizing testing costs and the number of family members who need to be tested. It offers considerable potential for cost savings and increased awareness of heritable conditions within families. CDC-classified Tier 1 genomic applications for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), Lynch Syndrome (LS), and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) are recommended for clinical use and support the use of cascade genetic screening. Most individuals are unaware of their increased risk for heritable conditions such as HBOC, LS, and FH. Consistent implementation of cascade genetic screening could significantly increase awareness and prevention of heritable conditions. Limitations to effective implementation of cascade genetic screening include: insufficient genetic risk assessment and knowledge by a majority of healthcare providers without genetics credentials; a shortage of genetic specialists, especially in rural areas; a low rate of reimbursement for comprehensive genetic counseling services; and an individual focus on prevention by clinical guidelines and insurance coverage. The family-centric approach of cascade genetic screening improves prevention and early diagnosis of heritable diseases on a population health level. Cascade genetic screening could be better supported and augmented through changes in health policy.

Public awareness of genetic nondiscrimination laws in four states and perceived importance of life insurance protections.

Genetic testing has grown dramatically in the past decade and is becoming an integral part of health care. Genetic nondiscrimination laws have been passed in many states, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was passed at the federal level in 2008. These laws generally protect individuals from discrimination by health insurers or employers based on genetic information, including test results. In 2010, Connecticut, Michigan, Ohio, and Oregon added four questions to their Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey to assess interest in genetic testing, awareness of genetic nondiscrimination laws, concern about genetic discrimination in determining life insurance eligibility and cost, and perceived importance of genetic nondiscrimination laws that address life insurance. Survey results showed that awareness of genetic nondiscrimination laws was low (less than 20 % of the adult population), while perceived importance of these types of laws was high (over 80 % of respondents rated them as very or somewhat important). Over two-thirds of respondents indicated they were very or somewhat concerned about life insurance companies using genetic test results to determine life insurance coverage and costs. Results indicate a need for more public education to raise awareness of protections provided through current genetic nondiscrimination laws. The high rate of concern about life insurance discrimination indicates an additional need for continued dialogue regarding the extent of legal protections in genetic nondiscrimination laws.

The Activities and Impact of State Programs to Address Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, 2011-2014.

In 2011, the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (DCPC), at the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), released a three-year funding opportunity announcement (FOA) for a competitive, non-research cooperative agreement. The agreement enhanced the capacities of state health departments to promote the application of best practices for evidence-based breast cancer genomics through education, surveillance, and policy activities. The FOA required that applicants focus on activities related to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). The DCPC funded three states: Georgia, Michigan, and Oregon. Georgia was a first-time recipient of cancer genomics funding, whereas Michigan and Oregon had long standing activities in cancer genomics and had received CDC funding in the past. By the end of the funding period, each state had well-functioning and impactful state-based programs in breast cancer genomics. This article highlights the impact of a few key state activities by using CDC's Science Impact Framework. There were challenges to implementing public health genomics programs, including the need to develop relevant partnerships, the highly technical nature of the subject matter, a lack of genetic services in certain areas, and the difficulty in funding genetic services. Georgia, Michigan, and Oregon have served as models for others interested in initiating or expanding cancer genomics programs, and they helped to determine what works well for promoting and integrating public health genomics into existing systems.

Patterns of cancer genetic testing: a randomized survey of Oregon clinicians.

Introduction. Appropriate use of genetic tests for population-based cancer screening, diagnosis of inherited cancers, and guidance of cancer treatment can improve health outcomes. We investigated clinicians' use and knowledge of eight breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer genetic tests. Methods. We conducted a randomized survey of 2,191 Oregon providers, asking about their experience with fecal DNA, OncoVue, BRCA, MMR, CYP2D6, tumor gene expression profiling, UGT1A1, and KRAS. Results. Clinicians reported low confidence in their knowledge of medical genetics; most confident were OB-GYNs and specialists. Clinicians were more likely to have ordered/recommended BRCA and MMR than the other tests, and OB-GYNs were twice as likely to have ordered/recommended BRCA testing than primary care providers. Less than 10% of providers ordered/recommended OncoVue, fecal DNA, CYP2D6, or UGT1A1; less than 30% ordered/recommended tumor gene expression profiles or KRAS. The most common reason for not ordering/recommending these tests was lack of familiarity. Conclusions. Use of appropriate, evidence-based testing can help reduce incidence and mortality of certain cancers, but these tests need to be better integrated into clinical practice. Continued evaluation of emerging technologies, dissemination of findings, and an increase in provider confidence and knowledge are necessary to achieve this end.