Evaluation of mailed results versus telephone disclosure of normal cancer genetic test results in a low-risk underserved population.

Scalable models for result disclosure are needed to ensure large-scale access to genomics services. Research evaluating alternatives to genetic counseling suggests effectiveness; however, it is unknown whether these findings are generalizable across populations. We assessed whether a letter is non-inferior to telephone genetic counseling to inform participants with no personal or family history of cancer of their normal results. Data were collected via self-report surveys before and after result disclosure (at 1 and 6 months) in a study sample enriched for individuals from underserved populations. Primary outcomes were subjective understanding of results (global and aggregated) and test-related feelings, ascertained via three subscales (uncertainty, negative emotions, and positive feelings) of the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) measure. Secondary outcomes related to satisfaction with communication. Non-inferiority tests compared outcomes among disclosure methods. Communication by letter was inferior in terms of global subjective understanding of results (at 1 month) and non-inferior to telephoned results (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for aggregated understanding (at 6 months). Letter was superior (at 1 month) to telephone on the uncertainty FACToR subscale. Letter was non-inferior to telephone on the positive-feelings FACToR subscale (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for satisfaction with mode of result delivery and genetic test results. Communication via letter was inferior to telephone in communicating the "right amount of information." The use of written communication to relay normal results to low-risk individuals is a promising strategy that may improve the efficiency of care delivery.

Genetic counseling services delivered in the usual way­during clinic visits­can take up a lot of time for patients and genetic counselors. Alternatives to this practice have been studied among genetic counseling patients to spare genetic counselors' time and expand access and flexibility for patients. Yet, in these studies, the participants have lacked diversity. So, it is not known how these research findings pertain to all populations. In this study, we looked at the use of an alternative care model, a mailed letter, for sharing normal genetic test results with study participants from underserved populations. We tested whether patients viewed the mailed letter as no worse than a telephone conversation with a genetic counselor, which has been shown to be well received by patients. We learned that study participants felt they understood their results, were not distressed to receive the results, and were satisfied with how their results were delivered. Lastly, we found that participants were more satisfied with the amount of information provided about their test results during the telephone conversation compared with the mailed letter. This study provides new information about different ways to deliver test results to individuals receiving genetic services.

Abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses and care following COVID-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence suggesting that COVID-19 vaccination may be associated with small, transitory effects on uterine bleeding, possibly including menstrual timing, flow, and duration, in some individuals. However, changes in health care seeking, diagnosis, and workup for abnormal uterine bleeding in the COVID-19 vaccine era are less clear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on incident abnormal uterine bleeding diagnosis and diagnostic evaluation in a large integrated health system. STUDY DESIGN: Using segmented regression, we assessed whether the availability of COVID-19 vaccines was associated with changes in monthly, population-based rates of incident abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses relative to the prepandemic period in health system members aged 16 to 44 years who were not menopausal. We also compared clinical and demographic characteristics of patients diagnosed with incident abnormal uterine bleeding between December 2020 and October 13, 2021 by vaccination status (never vaccinated, vaccinated in the 60 days before diagnosis, vaccinated >60 days before diagnosis). Furthermore, we conducted detailed chart review of patients diagnosed with abnormal uterine bleeding within 1 to 60 days of COVID-19 vaccination in the same time period. RESULTS: In monthly populations ranging from 79,000 to 85,000 female health system members, incidence of abnormal uterine bleeding diagnosis per 100,000 person-days ranged from 8.97 to 19.19. There was no significant change in the level or trend in the incidence of abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses between the prepandemic (January 2019-January 2020) and post-COVID-19 vaccine (December 2020-December 2021) periods. A comparison of clinical characteristics of 2717 abnormal uterine bleeding cases by vaccination status suggested that abnormal bleeding among recently vaccinated patients was similar or less severe than abnormal bleeding among patients who had never been vaccinated or those vaccinated >60 days before. There were also significant differences in age and race of patients with incident abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses by vaccination status (Ps<.02). Never-vaccinated patients were the youngest and those vaccinated >60 days before were the oldest. The proportion of patients who were Black/African American was highest among never-vaccinated patients, and the proportion of Asian patients was higher among vaccinated patients. Chart review of 114 confirmed postvaccination abnormal uterine bleeding cases diagnosed from December 2020 through October 13, 2021 found that the most common symptoms reported were changes in timing, duration, and volume of bleeding. Approximately one-third of cases received no diagnostic workup; 57% had no etiology for the bleeding documented in the electronic health record. In 12% of cases, the patient mentioned or asked about a possible link between their bleeding and their recent COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION: The availability of COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with a change in incidence of medically attended abnormal uterine bleeding in our population of over 79,000 female patients of reproductive age. In addition, among 2717 patients with abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses in the period following COVID-19 vaccine availability, receipt of the vaccine was not associated with greater bleeding severity.

Postmenopausal bleeding after COVID-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing literature base regarding menstrual changes following COVID-19 vaccination among premenopausal people. However, relatively little is known about uterine bleeding in postmenopausal people following COVID-19 vaccination. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine trends in incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnoses over time before and after COVID-19 vaccine introduction, and to describe cases of new-onset postmenopausal bleeding after COVID-19 vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: For postmenopausal bleeding incidence calculations, monthly population-level cohorts consisted of female Kaiser Permanente Northwest members aged ≥45 years. Those diagnosed with incident postmenopausal bleeding in the electronic medical record were included in monthly numerators. Members with preexisting postmenopausal bleeding or abnormal uterine bleeding, or who were at increased risk of bleeding due to other health conditions, were excluded from monthly calculations. We used segmented regression analysis to estimate changes in the incidence of postmenopausal bleeding diagnoses from 2018 through 2021 in Kaiser Permanente Northwest members meeting the inclusion criteria, stratified by COVID-19 vaccination status in 2021. In addition, we identified all members with ≥1 COVID-19 vaccination between December 14, 2020 and August 14, 2021, who had an incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnosis within 60 days of vaccination. COVID-19 vaccination, diagnostic procedures, and presumed bleeding etiology were assessed through chart review and described. A temporal scan statistic was run on all cases without clear bleeding etiology. RESULTS: In a population of 75,530 to 82,693 individuals per month, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnoses before and after COVID-19 vaccine introduction (P=.59). A total of 104 individuals had incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnosed within 60 days following COVID-19 vaccination; 76% of cases (79/104) were confirmed as postvaccination postmenopausal bleeding after chart review. Median time from vaccination to bleeding onset was 21 days (range: 2-54 days). Among the 56 postmenopausal bleeding cases with a provider-attributed etiology, the common causes of bleeding were uterine or cervical lesions (50% [28/56]), hormone replacement therapy (13% [7/56]), and proliferative endometrium (13% [7/56]). Among the 23 cases without a clear etiology, there was no statistically significant clustering of postmenopausal bleeding onset following vaccination. CONCLUSION: Within this integrated health system, introduction of COVID-19 vaccines was not associated with an increase in incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnoses. Diagnosis of postmenopausal bleeding in the 60 days following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination was rare.

Influenza vaccination coverage among persons ages six months and older in the Vaccine Safety Datalink in the 2017-18 through 2022-23 influenza seasons.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is recommended for all people ages ≥ 6 months. Vaccination coverage assessments can identify populations less protected from influenza morbidity and mortality and help to tailor vaccination efforts. Within the Vaccine Safety Datalink population ages ≥ 6 months, we report influenza vaccination coverage for the 2017-18 through 2022-23 seasons. METHODS: Across eight health systems, we identified influenza vaccines administered from August 1 through March 31 for each season using electronic health records linked to immunization registries. Crude vaccination coverage was described for each season, overall and by self-reported sex; age group; self-reported race and ethnicity; and number of separate categories of diagnoses associated with increased risk of severe illness and complications from influenza (hereafter referred to as high-risk conditions). High-risk conditions were assessed using ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes assigned in the year preceding each influenza season. RESULTS: Among individual cohorts of more than 12 million individuals each season, overall influenza vaccination coverage increased from 41.9 % in the 2017-18 season to a peak of 46.2 % in 2019-20, prior to declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Coverage declined over the next three seasons, coincident with widespread SARS-CoV-2 circulation, to a low of 40.3 % in the 2022-23 season. In each of the six seasons, coverage was lowest among males, 18-49-year-olds, non-Hispanic Black people, and those with no high-risk conditions. While decreases in coverage were present in all age groups, the declines were most substantial among children: 2022-23 season coverage for children ages six months through 8 years and 9-17 years was 24.5 % and 22.4 % (14 and 10 absolute percentage points), respectively, less than peak coverage achieved in the 2019-20 season. CONCLUSIONS: Crude influenza vaccination coverage increased from 2017 to 18 through 2019-20, then decreased to the lowest level in the 2022-23 season. In this insured population, we identified persistent disparities in influenza vaccination coverage by sex, age, and race and ethnicity. The overall low coverage, disparities in coverage, and recent decreases in coverage are significant public health concerns.

Influenza Vaccination Among Pregnant People Before and During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.

There are limited data on influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant people in the United States during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Within the Vaccine Safety Datalink, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine influenza vaccination coverage during the 2016-2017 through the 2021-2022 influenza seasons among pregnant people aged 18-49 years. Using influenza vaccines administered through March each season, we assessed crude coverage by demographic and clinical characteristics. Annual influenza vaccination coverage increased from the 2016-2017 season (63.0%) to a high of 71.0% in the 2019-2020 season. After the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, it decreased to a low of 56.4% (2021-2022). In each of the six seasons, coverage was lowest among pregnant people aged 18-24 years and among non-Hispanic Black pregnant people. The 2021-2022 season had the lowest coverage across all age and race and ethnicity groups. The recent decreases highlight the need for continued efforts to improve coverage among pregnant people.

Simultaneous administration of mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster and influenza vaccines.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized use of mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccines on August 31, 2022. Currently, CDC's clinical guidance states that COVID-19 and other vaccines may be administered simultaneously. At time of authorization and recommendations, limited data existed describing simultaneous administration of COVID-19 bivalent booster and other vaccines. We describe simultaneous influenza and mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine administration between August 31-December 31, 2022, among persons aged ≥6 months in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) by COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine type, influenza vaccine type, age group, sex, and race and ethnicity. Of 2,301,876 persons who received a COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine, 737,992 (32.1%) received simultaneous influenza vaccine, majority were female (53.1%), aged ≥18 years (91.4%), and non-Hispanic White (55.7%). These findings can inform future VSD studies on simultaneous influenza and COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine safety and coverage, which may have implications for immunization service delivery.

Risk management actions following genetic testing in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing can identify cancer risk early, enabling prevention and early detection. We describe use of risk management interventions following genetic testing in the Cancer Health Assessment Reaching Many (CHARM) study. CHARM assessed risk and provided genetic testing to low income, low literacy, and other underserved populations that historically face barriers to accessing cancer genetic services. METHODS: CHARM was implemented in Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) and Denver Health (DH) between 2018 and 2020. We identified post-testing screening (mammography, breast MRI, colonoscopy) and surgical (mastectomy, oophorectomy) procedures using electronic health records. We examined utilization in participants who did and did not receive actionable risk management recommendations from study genetic counselors following national guidelines. RESULTS: CHARM participants were followed for an average of 15.4 months (range: 0.4-27.8 months) after results disclosure. Less than 2% (11/680) received actionable risk management recommendations (i.e., could be completed in the initial years following testing) based on their test result. Among those who received actionable recommendations, risk management utilization was moderate (54.5%, 6/11 completed any procedure) and varied by procedure (mammogram: 0/3; MRI: 2/4; colonoscopy: 4/5; mastectomy: 1/5; oophorectomy: 0/3). Cancer screening and surgery procedures were rare in participants without actionable recommendations. CONCLUSION: Though the number of participants who received actionable risk management recommendations was small, our results suggest that implementing CHARM's risk assessment and testing model increased access to evidence-based genetic services and provided opportunities for patients to engage in recommended preventive care, without encouraging risk management overuse.

Longitudinal adherence to breast cancer surveillance following cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.

PURPOSE: Screening with mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important risk management strategy for individuals with inherited pathogenic variants (PVs) in genes associated with increased breast cancer risk. We describe longitudinal screening adherence in individuals who underwent cancer genetic testing as part of usual care in a vertically integrated health system. METHODS: We determined the proportion time covered (PTC) by annual mammography and breast MRI for individuals with PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, and ATM. We determined time covered by biennial mammography beginning at age 50 years for individuals who received negative results, uncertain results, or with PVs in genes without specific breast cancer screening recommendations. RESULTS: One hundred and forty individuals had PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, or ATM. Among these individuals, average PTC was 48% (range 0-99%) for annual screening mammography and 34% (range 0-100%) for annual breast MRI. Average PTC was highest for individuals with PVs in CHEK2 (N = 14) and lowest for individuals with PVs in TP53 (N = 3). Average PTC for biennial mammography (N = 1,027) was 49% (0-100%). CONCLUSION: Longitudinal screening adherence in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes, as measured by the proportion of time covered, is low; adherence to annual breast MRI falls below that of annual mammography. Additional research should examine screening behavior in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes with a goal of developing interventions to improve adherence to recommended risk management.

Evaluating cancer genetic services in a safety net system: overcoming barriers for a lasting impact beyond the CHARM research project.

Underserved patients face substantial barriers to receiving cancer genetic services. The Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study evaluated ways to increase access to genetic testing for individuals in underserved populations at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS). Here, we report the successful implementation of CHARM in a low-resource environment and the development of sustainable processes to continue genetic risk assessment in this setting. The research team involved key clinical personnel and patient advisors at Denver Health to provide input on study methods and materials. Through iterative and collaborative stakeholder engagement, the team identified barriers and developed solutions that would both facilitate participation in CHARM and be feasible to implement and sustain long term in clinical care. With a focus on infrastructure building, educational modules were developed to increase awareness among referring providers, and standard methods of identifying and managing HCS patients were implemented in the electronic medical record. Three hundred sixty-four DH patients successfully completed the risk assessment tool within the study, and we observed a sustained increase in referrals to genetics for HCS (from 179 in 2017 to 427 in 2021 post-intervention). Implementation of the CHARM study at a low-resourced safety net health system resulted in sustainable improvements in access to cancer genetic risk assessment and services that continue even after the study ended.Trial registration NCT03426878.

Epidemiology of Upper Limb Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in a Retrospective Cohort of Persons Aged 9-30 Years, 2002-2017.

Introduction This paper describes the epidemiology and clinical presentation of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in a large, integrated health care delivery system; and CRPS incidence rates (IRs) over a time period spanning human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine licensure and published case reports of CRPS following HPV vaccination. Methods The authors examined CRPS diagnoses in patients aged 9-30 years between January 2002 and December 2017 using electronic medical records, excluding patients with lower limb diagnoses only. Medical record abstraction and adjudication were conducted to verify diagnoses and describe clinical characteristics. CRPS IRs were calculated for 3 periods: Period 1 (2002-2006: before HPV vaccine licensure), Period 2 (2007-2012: after licensure but before published case reports), and Period 3 (2013-2017: after published case reports). Results A total of 231 individuals received an upper limb or unspecified CRPS diagnosis code during the study period; 113 cases were verified through abstraction and adjudication. Most verified cases (73%) were associated with a clear precipitating event (eg, non-vaccine-related injury, surgical procedure). The authors identified only 1 case in which a practitioner attributed CRPS onset to HPV vaccination. Twenty-five incident cases occurred in Period 1 (IR = 4.35/100,000 person-years (PY), 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.94-6.44), 42 in Period 2 (IR = 5.94/100,000 PY, 95% CI = 4.39-8.04), and 29 in Period 3 (IR = 4.53/100,000 PY, 95% CI = 3.15-6.52); differences between periods were not statistically significant. Conclusion These data provide a comprehensive assessment of the epidemiology and characteristics of CRPS in children and young adults and provide further reassurance about the safety of HPV vaccination.

Medical interpreter-mediated genetic counseling for Spanish preferring adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome.

The objective of this study was to identify interpretation challenges specific to exome sequencing and errors of potential clinical significance in the context of genetic counseling for adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome. Thirty transcripts of interpreter-mediated telephone results disclosure genetic counseling appointments were coded for errors by bilingual researchers, and the coders applied an overall rating to denote the degree to which the errors interfered with communication overall. Genetic counselors reviewed a subset of errors flagged for potential clinical significance to identify those likely to have clinical impact. Qualitative interviews with 19 interpreters were analyzed to elucidate the challenges they face in interpreting for genetic counseling appointments. Our analysis identified common interpretation errors such as raising the register, omissions, and additions. Further, we found errors specific to genetic counseling concepts and content that appeared to impact the ability of the genetic counselor to accurately assess risk. These errors also may have impacted the patient's ability to understand their results, access appropriate follow-up care, and communicate with family members. Among interpreters' strengths was the use of requests for clarification; in fact, even more use of clarification would have been beneficial in these encounters. Qualitative interviews surfaced challenges stemming from the structure of interpreter work, such as switching from medical and nonmedical interpretations without substantial breaks. Importantly, while errors were frequent, most did not impede communication overall, and most were not likely to impact clinical care. Nevertheless, potentially clinically impactful errors in communication of genetics concepts may contribute to inequitable care for limited English proficient patients and suggest that additional training in genetics and specialization in healthcare may be warranted. In addition, training for genetic counselors and guidance for patients in working effectively with interpreters could enhance interpreters' transmission of complex genetic concepts.

Literacy-adapted, electronic family history assessment for genetics referral in primary care: patient user insights from qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment for hereditary cancer syndromes is recommended in primary care, but family history is rarely collected in enough detail to facilitate risk assessment and referral - a roadblock that disproportionately impacts individuals with healthcare access barriers. We sought to qualitatively assess a literacy-adapted, electronic patient-facing family history tool developed for use in diverse, underserved patient populations recruited in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study. METHODS: Interview participants were recruited from a subpopulation of CHARM participants who experienced barriers to tool use in terms of spending a longer time to complete the tool, having incomplete attempts, and/or providing inaccurate family history in comparison to a genetic counselor-collected standard. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants about barriers and facilitators to tool use and overall tool acceptability; interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were coded based on a codebook developed using inductive techniques, and coded excerpts were reviewed to identify overarching themes related to barriers and facilitators to family history self-assessment and acceptability of the study tool. RESULTS: Interviewees endorsed the tool as easy to navigate and understand. However, they described barriers related to family history information, literacy and language, and certain tool functions. Participants offered concrete, easy-to-implement solutions to each barrier. Despite experience barriers to use of the tool, most participants indicated that electronic family history self-assessment was acceptable or preferable in comparison to clinician-collected family history. CONCLUSIONS: Even for participants who experienced barriers to tool use, family history self-assessment was considered an acceptable alternative to clinician-collected family history. Barriers experienced could be overcome with minor adaptations to the current family history tool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is a sub-study of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) trial, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03426878. Registered 8 February 2018.

Lessons learned and recommendations for data coordination in collaborative research: The CSER consortium experience.

Integrating data across heterogeneous research environments is a key challenge in multi-site, collaborative research projects. While it is important to allow for natural variation in data collection protocols across research sites, it is also important to achieve interoperability between datasets in order to reap the full benefits of collaborative work. However, there are few standards to guide the data coordination process from project conception to completion. In this paper, we describe the experiences of the Clinical Sequence Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium Data Coordinating Center (DCC), which coordinated harmonized survey and genomic sequencing data from seven clinical research sites from 2020 to 2022. Using input from multiple consortium working groups and from CSER leadership, we first identify 14 lessons learned from CSER in the categories of communication, harmonization, informatics, compliance, and analytics. We then distill these lessons learned into 11 recommendations for future research consortia in the areas of planning, communication, informatics, and analytics. We recommend that planning and budgeting for data coordination activities occur as early as possible during consortium conceptualization and development to minimize downstream complications. We also find that clear, reciprocal, and continuous communication between consortium stakeholders and the DCC is equally important to maintaining a secure and centralized informatics ecosystem for pooling data. Finally, we discuss the importance of actively interrogating current approaches to data governance, particularly for research studies that straddle the research-clinical divide.

Risk-reducing surgery in unaffected individuals receiving cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing enables primary cancer prevention, including through prophylactic surgery. We examined risk-reducing surgeries in unaffected individuals tested for hereditary cancer susceptibly between 2010 and 2018 in the Kaiser Permanente Northwest health system. METHODS: We used an internal genetic testing database to create a cohort of individuals who received tests including one or more high-penetrance hereditary cancer susceptibility gene. We then identified, after testing, bilateral mastectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), and total hysterectomy procedures in electronic health record and claims data through 2019. We describe surgery utilization by genetic test results and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. RESULTS: The cohort included 1020 individuals, 16% with pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in one or more of the following genes: BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, APC, MUTYH, ATM, MSH2, PALB2, BRIP1, MLH1, MSH6, EPCAM, FLCN, RAD51C, RAD51D, or TP53. Among individuals with P/LP variants making them candidates for mastectomy, BSO, or hysterectomy per NCCN guidelines, 34% (33/97), 24% (23/94), and 8% (1/12), respectively, underwent surgery during follow-up. Fifty-three percent (18/37) of hysterectomies were among APC, BRCA1, and BRCA2 P/LP variant heterozygotes, typically concurrent with BSO. Three individuals with variants of uncertain significance (only) and 22 with negative results had prophylactic surgery after genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of risk-reducing surgery following usual care genetic testing appears to be lower than in studies that actively recruit high-risk patients and provide testing and follow-up care in specialized settings. Factors in addition to genetic test results and NCCN guidelines motivate prophylactic surgery use and deserve further study.

ORCA, a values-based decision aid for selecting additional findings from genomic sequencing in adults: Efficacy results from a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Individuals having genomic sequencing can choose to be notified about pathogenic variants in genes unrelated to the testing indication. A decision aid can facilitate weighing one's values before making a choice about these additional results. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial (N = 231) comparing informed values-choice congruence among adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome who viewed either the Optional Results Choice Aid (ORCA) or web-based additional findings information alone. ORCA is values-focused with a low-literacy design. RESULTS: Individuals in both arms had informed values-choice congruence (75% and 73% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.58-2.08). Most participants had adequate knowledge (79% and 76% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.61-2.34), with no significant difference between groups. Most had information-seeking values (97% and 98% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.10-3.61) and chose to receive additional findings. CONCLUSION: The ORCA decision aid did not significantly improve informed values-choice congruence over web-based information in this cohort of adults deciding about genomic results. Both web-based approaches may be effective for adults to decide about receiving medically actionable additional results.

Identifying patients with Lynch syndrome using a universal tumor screening program in an integrated healthcare system.

INTRODUCTION: Lynch syndrome (LS) is associated with an increased risk of colorectal (CRC) and endometrial (EC) cancers. Universal tumor screening (UTS) of all individuals diagnosed with CRC and EC is recommended to increase identification of LS. Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) implemented a UTS program for LS among individuals newly diagnosed with CRC in January 2016 and EC in November 2016. UTS at KPNW begins with immunohistochemistry (IHC) of tumor tissue to determine loss of mismatch repair proteins associated with LS (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2)., IHC showing loss of MLH1 is followed by reflex testing (automatic testing) to detect the presence of the BRAF V600E variant (in cases of CRC) and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation to rule out likely sporadic cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals newly diagnosed with CRC and EC were identified between the initiation of the respective UTS programs and July 2018. Electronic medical records were reviewed to extract patient data related to UTS, including IHC and reflex testing results, date of referrals to the genetics department, and results of germline genetic testing for LS. RESULTS: 313 out of 362 individuals diagnosed with CRC and 61 out of 64 individuals diagnosed with EC who were eligible were screened by IHC for LS. Most (47/52 or 90%, including 46/49 CRC and 1/3 EC) individuals that were not screened by IHC only had a biopsy sample available. Fourteen individuals (3.7% overall, including 13/313 CRC and 1/61 EC) received an abnormal result after reflex testing and were referred for genetic counseling. Of these, 10 individuals (71% overall, including 9/13 CRC and 1/1 EC) underwent germline genetic testing for LS. Five individuals diagnosed with CRC were found to have pathogenic variants. in PMS2 (n = 3), MLH1 (n = 1), and MSH6 (n = 1). No pathogenic variants were identified in individuals diagnosed with EC. CONCLUSIONS: UTS identified individuals at risk for LS. Most individuals who screened positive for LS had follow-up germline genetic testing for LS. The consistent use of biopsy samples is an opportunity to improve UTS.

Laboratory-related outcomes from integrating an accessible delivery model for hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in populations with barriers to access.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the laboratory-related outcomes of participants who were offered genomic testing based on cancer family history risk assessment tools. METHODS: Patients from clinics that serve populations with access barriers, who are screened at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome based on adapted family history collection tools (the Breast Cancer Genetics Referral Screening Tool and PREMM5), were offered exome-based panel testing for cancer risk and medically actionable secondary findings. We used descriptive statistics, electronic health record review, and inferential statistics to explore participant characteristics and results, consultations and actions related to pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants identified, and variables predicting category of findings, respectively. RESULTS: Of all the participants, 87% successfully returned a saliva kit. Overall, 5% had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic cancer risk variant and 1% had a secondary finding. Almost all (14/15, 93%) participants completed recommended consultations with nongenetics providers after an average of 17 months. The recommended actions (eg, breast magnetic resonance imaging) were completed by 17 of 25 participants. Participant personal history of cancer and PREMM5 score were each associated with the category of findings (history and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .02; history and breast cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .01; PREMM5TM score; and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P < .001). CONCLUSION: This accessible model of hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing yielded results that were often acted upon by patients and physicians.

Retrospective assessment of barriers and access to genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes in an integrated health care delivery system.

BACKGROUND: A critical step in access to genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes is referral for genetic counseling to assess personal and family risk. Individuals meeting testing guidelines have the greatest need to be evaluated. However, referrals to genetics are underutilized in US patients with hereditary cancer syndromes, especially within traditionally underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income, and non-English speaking patients. METHODS: We studied existing processes for referral to genetic evaluation and testing for hereditary cancer risk to identify areas of potential improvement in delivering these services, especially for traditionally underserved patients. We conducted a retrospective review of 820 referrals to the Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) genetics department containing diagnosis codes for hereditary cancer risk. We classified referrals as high- or low-quality based on whether sufficient information was provided to determine if patients met national practice guidelines for testing. Through chart abstraction, we also assessed consistency with practice guidelines, whether the referral resulted in a visit to the genetics department for evaluation, and clinical characteristics of patients receiving genetic testing. RESULTS: Most referrals (n = 514, 63%) contained sufficient information to assess the appropriateness of referral; of those, 92% met practice guidelines for genetic testing. Half of referred patients (50%) were not offered genetic evaluation; only 31% received genetic testing. We identified several barriers to receiving genetic evaluation and testing, the biggest barrier being completion of a family history form sent to patients following the referral. Those with a referral consistent with testing guidelines, were more likely to receive genetic testing than those without (39% vs. 29%, respectively; p = 0.0058). Traditionally underserved patients were underrepresented in those receiving genetic evaluation and testing relative to the overall adult KPNW population. CONCLUSIONS: Process improvements are needed to increase access to genetic services to diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes prior to development of cancer.