Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer Genetic Testing May be Mitigated by Counseling.

BACKGROUND: Currently, racial disparities exist in access to genetic testing. Recent developments have helped narrow the gap in accessibility. The purpose of this study was to determine whether racial disparities in genetic consultation attendance and completion of genetic testing persist, and, if so, factors that contribute to under-utilization of these resources. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of breast patients referred for genetic counseling between 2017 and 2019 was performed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression evaluated factors associated with genetic counseling attendance and genetic testing. RESULTS: A total of 596 patients were referred for genetic counseling: 433 (72.7%) white; 138 (23.2%) black; and 25 (4.2%) other or unknown. In multivariate analysis, black patients, patients without breast cancer family history, and patients without a current cancer diagnosis, classified as high risk, were significantly less likely to attend their genetics appointment (p = 0.010, p = 0.007, p = 0.005, respectively). Age, insurance type, distance from facility, and need for chemotherapy did not significantly impact consult completion rate. Of the patients who completed a genetic consult, 84.4% (n = 248) had genetic testing and 17.7% (n = 44) had a pathogenic variant. For patients who attended counseling, there were no significant factors that were predictive with receipt of genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, there was a significant association between race and attending genetic counseling. Once counseled, most patients went on to receive genetic testing, and racial disparities in testing disappeared, emphasizing the value of providing additional education about the importance and purpose of genetic testing.

Implementation Mapping for Managing Patients at High Risk for Hereditary Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, no standard workflow exists for managing patients with pathogenic variants that put them at higher risk for hereditary cancers. Therefore, follow-up care for individuals with pathogenic variants is logistically challenging and results in poor guideline adherence. To address this challenge, authors created clinical management strategies for individuals identified at high risk for hereditary cancers. METHODS: An implementation mapping approach was used to develop and evaluate the establishment of a Hereditary Cancer Clinic at the Medical University of South Carolina throughout in 2022. This approach consisted of 5 steps: conduct a needs assessment, identify objectives, select implementation strategies, produce implementation protocols, and develop an evaluation plan. The needs assessment consisted of qualitative interviews with patients (n=11), specialists (n=9), and members of the implementation team (n=4). Interviews were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify barriers and facilitators to establishment of the Hereditary Cancer Clinic. Objectives were identified, and then the team selected implementation strategies and produced implementation protocols to address concerns identified during the needs assessment. Authors conducted a second round of patient interviews to assess patient education materials. RESULTS: The research team developed a long-term evaluation plan to guide future assessment of implementation, service, and clinical/patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This approach provides the opportunity for real-time enhancements and impact, with strategies for care specialists, patients, and implementation teams. Findings support ongoing efforts to improve patient management and outcomes while providing an opportunity for long-term evaluation of implementation strategies and guidelines for patients at high risk for hereditary cancers.

Penetrance of Gastric Adenocarcinoma Susceptibility Genes: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) is the fifth most common cancer in the world, and the presence of germline pathogenic variants has been linked with approximately 5% of gastric cancer diagnoses. Multiple GAC susceptibility genes have been identified, but information regarding the risk associated with pathogenic variants in these genes remains obscure. We conducted a systematic review of existing studies reporting the penetrance of GAC susceptibility genes. METHODS: A structured search query was devised to identify GAC-related papers indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed. A semi-automated natural language processing algorithm was applied to identify penetrance papers for inclusion. Original studies reporting the penetrance of GAC were included and the full-text articles were independently reviewed. Summary statistics, effect estimates, and precision parameters from these studies were compiled into a table using a predetermined format to ensure consistency. RESULTS: Forty-five studies were identified reporting the penetrance of GAC among patients harboring mutations in 13 different genes: APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, MUTYH-Monoallelic, NBN, and STK11. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review highlights the importance of testing for germline pathogenic variants in patients before the development of GAC. Management of patients who harbor a pathogenic mutation is multifactorial, and clinicians should consider cancer risk for each applicable gene-cancer association throughout the screening and management process. The scarcity of studies we found investigating the risk of GAC among patients with pathogenic variants in GAC susceptibility genes highlights the need for more investigations that focus on producing robust risk estimates for gene-cancer associations.