Genetic Testing Uptake among Ovarian Cancer Survivors in the Genetic Risk Analysis in Ovarian Cancer (GRACE) Study.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations state all people with ovarian cancers (OCs) receive genetic counseling, but testing uptake is only between 15 and 31%. Those with a prior diagnosis of OC who have not received genetic testing represent a missed opportunity for life-saving genetic risk information. The Genetic Risk Analysis in ovarian CancEr (GRACE) study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of the retrospective identification ("Traceback") of individuals diagnosed with OC. METHODS: This nonrandomized intervention study within two integrated health care systems identified participants with a history of OC between 1998 and 2020 who did not have genetic testing or testing limited to BRCA1/2. Participants received clinical genomic sequencing via a custom 60 gene panel. This study measured the feasibility of the Traceback methodology in OC survivors. RESULTS: The initial cohort included 929 individuals, of which 57% had no prior genetic testing. Of the 302 eligible for recruitment, 88 consented to participate. We were able to outreach 97% of the eligible population using contact information from medical records. The stage at diagnosis was the only factor associated with consent. Of the 78 who returned their saliva sample, 21% had pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants, and 79% had negative results. CONCLUSION: The GRACE study resulted in a 29% uptake of genetic testing in OC survivors. The time since diagnosis did not have an impact on consent or ability to contact. GRACE can inform the implementation of future Traceback programs, providing guidance on how to prevent and mitigate the burden of OC and other hereditary cancers.

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.

Blood-based colorectal cancer screening in an integrated health system: a randomised trial of patient adherence.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether people who had not completed a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening would complete a blood-based testing option if offered one during health encounters. Blood-based screening tests for CRC could add to the total number of people screened for CRC by providing another testing alternative. DESIGN: Study participants were patients aged 45-75 years at a large, integrated health system who were offered but did not complete an FIT in the prior 3-9 months and were scheduled for a clinical encounter. Individuals were randomised (1:1) to be offered a commercially available CRC blood test (Shield, Guardant Health) versus usual care. We compared 3-month CRC screening proportions in the two groups. RESULTS: We randomised 2026 patients; 2004 remained eligible following postrandomisation exclusions (1003 to usual care and 1001 to blood draw offer; mean age: 60, 62% female, 80% non-Hispanic white). Of the 1001 allocated to the blood test group, 924 were recruited following chart-review exclusions; 548 (59.3%) were reached via phone, of which 280 (51.1%) scheduled an appointment with the research team. CRC screening proportions were 17.5 percentage points higher in the blood test group versus usual care (30.5% vs 13.0%; OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.70; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Among adults who had declined prior CRC screening, the offer of a blood-based screening test boosted CRC screening by 17.5 percentage points over usual care. Further research is needed on how to balance the favourable adherence with lower advanced adenoma detection compared with other available tests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05987709.