Impact of barriers and motivators on intention and confidence to undergo hereditary cancer genetic testing.

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes can provide lifesaving information allowing for individualized cancer screening, prevention, and treatment. However, the determinants, both barriers and motivators, of genetic testing intention are not well described. A survey of barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to adult patients eligible for genetic testing based on cancer diagnosis who previously have not had genetic testing (n = 201). Associations between barriers/motivators with testing intention and confidence were examined first by correlation followed by multivariable linear regression model holding constant potential covariates. Seven barrier items from two domains (logistics and genetic testing knowledge) were found to significantly negatively correlate with genetic testing intention. Unexpectedly, three barrier items had significant positive correlation with genetic testing intention; these were related to family worry (passing a condition on to future generations) and testing knowledge (needing more information on the genetic testing process and what it has to offer). Ten barrier items had significant negative correlation with confidence to get a genetic test and encompassed four domains: stigma, insurance/genetic discrimination, knowledge, and cost. All motivator items were associated with intention to get a genetic test, while none were associated with confidence. Multivariable analysis yielded six total barriers (five from the knowledge domain, one from cost domain) and two motivators (relieved to know and treatment impact) that were significantly associated with genetic testing intention or confidence when controlling for demographic characteristics. These findings indicate the need for tailored interventions to amplify motivating factors and counter-message barriers to enhance patient motivation and confidence to undergo testing.

Motivational interviewing for genetic counseling: A unified framework for persuasive and equipoise conversations.

Genetic counselors (GCs) have traditionally been trained to adopt a position of equipoise or clinical neutrality. They provide information, answer questions, address barriers, and engage in shared decision-making, but generally, they do not prescribe a genetic test. Historically, GCs have generally been trained not to persuade the ambivalent or resistant patient. More recently, however, there has been discussion regarding when a greater degree of persuasion or directionality may be appropriate within genetic counseling (GC) and what role MI may play in this process. The role for "persuasive GC" is based on the premise that some genetic tests provide actionable information that would clearly benefit patients and families by impacting treatment or surveillance. For other tests, the benefits are less clear as they do not directly impact patient care or the benefits may be more subjective in nature, driven by patient values or psychological needs. For the former, we propose that GCs may adopt a more persuasive clinical approach while for the latter, a more traditional equipoise stance may be more appropriate. We suggest that motivational interviewing (MI) could serve as a unifying counseling model that allows GCs to handle both persuasive and equipoise encounters. For clearly beneficial tests, while directional, the MI encounter can still be non-directive, autonomy-supportive, and patient-centered. MI can also be adapted for equipoise situations, for example, placing less emphasis on eliciting and strengthening change talk as that is more a behavior change strategy than a shared decision-making strategy. The core principles and strategies of MI, such as autonomy support, evocation, open questions, reflective listening, and affirmation would apply to both persuasive and equipoise encounters. Key issues that merit discussion include how best to train GCs both during their initial and post-graduate education.

Psychosocial factors impacting barriers and motivators to cancer genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: Only a small proportion of patients who qualify for clinical genetic testing for cancer susceptibility get testing. Many patient-level barriers contribute to low uptake. In this study, we examined self-reported patient barriers and motivators for cancer genetic testing. METHODS: A survey comprised of both new and existing measures related to barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to patients with a diagnosis of cancer at a large academic medical center. Patients who self-reported receiving a genetic test were included in these analyses (n = 376). Responses about emotions following testing as well as barriers and motivators prior to getting testing were examined. Group differences in barriers and motivators by patient demographic characteristics were examined. RESULTS: Being assigned female at birth was associated with increased emotional, insurance, and family concerns as well as increased health benefits compared to patients assigned male at birth. Younger respondents had significantly higher emotional and family concerns compared to older respondents. Recently diagnosed respondents expressed fewer concerns about insurance implications and emotional concerns. Those with a BRCA-related cancer had higher scores on social and interpersonal concerns scale than those with other cancers. Participants with higher depression scores indicated increased emotional, social and interpersonal, and family concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported depression emerged as the most consistent factor influencing report of barriers to genetic testing. By incorporating mental health resources into clinical practice, oncologists may better identify those patients who might need more assistance following through with a referral for genetic testing and the response afterwards.

The Michigan Genetic Hereditary Testing (MiGHT) study's innovative approaches to promote uptake of clinical genetic testing among cancer patients: a study protocol for a 3-arm randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although most cancers are sporadic, germline genetic variants are implicated in 5-10% of cancer cases. Clinical genetic testing identifies pathogenic germline genetic variants for hereditary cancers. The Michigan Genetic Hereditary Testing (MiGHT) study is a three-arm randomized clinical trial that aims to test the efficacy of two patient-level behavioral interventions on uptake of cancer genetic testing. METHODS: The two interventions being tested are (1) a virtual genetics navigator and (2) motivational interviewing by genetic health coaches. Eligible participants are adults with a diagnosis of breast, prostate, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer who meet the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic testing. Participants are recruited through community oncology practices affiliated with the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium (MOQC) and have used the Family Health History Tool (FHHT) to determine testing eligibility. The recruitment goal is 759 participants, who will be randomized to usual care or to either the virtual genetics navigator or the motivational interviewing intervention arms. The primary outcome will be the proportion of individuals who complete germline genetic testing within 6 months. DISCUSSION: This study addresses patient-level factors which are associated with the uptake of genetic testing. The study will test two different intervention approaches, both of which can help address the shortage of genetic counselors and improve access to care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Michigan Medical School (HUM00192898) and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05162846).

The SRG rat, a Sprague-Dawley Rag2/Il2rg double-knockout validated for human tumor oncology studies.

We have created the immunodeficient SRG rat, a Sprague-Dawley Rag2/Il2rg double knockout that lacks mature B cells, T cells, and circulating NK cells. This model has been tested and validated for use in oncology (SRG OncoRat®). The SRG rat demonstrates efficient tumor take rates and growth kinetics with different human cancer cell lines and PDXs. Although multiple immunodeficient rodent strains are available, some important human cancer cell lines exhibit poor tumor growth and high variability in those models. The VCaP prostate cancer model is one such cell line that engrafts unreliably and grows irregularly in existing models but displays over 90% engraftment rate in the SRG rat with uniform growth kinetics. Since rats can support much larger tumors than mice, the SRG rat is an attractive host for PDX establishment. Surgically resected NSCLC tissue from nine patients were implanted in SRG rats, seven of which engrafted and grew for an overall success rate of 78%. These developed into a large tumor volume, over 20,000 mm3 in the first passage, which would provide an ample source of tissue for characterization and/or subsequent passage into NSG mice for drug efficacy studies. Molecular characterization and histological analyses were performed for three PDX lines and showed high concordance between passages 1, 2 and 3 (P1, P2, P3), and the original patient sample. Our data suggest the SRG OncoRat is a valuable tool for establishing PDX banks and thus serves as an alternative to current PDX mouse models hindered by low engraftment rates, slow tumor growth kinetics, and multiple passages to develop adequate tissue banks.