Germline Testing for Veterans with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Concerns about Service-Connected Benefits.

To better understand Veterans' decisions about germline testing, we conducted a single-site, qualitative study of 32 Veterans with advanced prostate cancer. Seven days after oncologist-patient discussions about germline testing, we conducted semi-structured interviews with patients exploring their decision-making process using an interview guide. Four of 14 Veterans with service-connected disability benefits for prostate cancer declined germline testing for fear of losing benefits, as their livelihood depended on these benefits. All 18 Veterans without service-connected benefits agreed to testing. Veterans declining germline testing for this concern can lead to suboptimal cancer care because targeted treatments that could improve their outcomes may go unrecognized. Our findings contributed to new language in the Veterans Benefits Administration Compensation and Pension Manual clarifying that genetic testing showing hereditary predisposition is insufficient to deny service-connected benefits for conditions presumed to be caused by military exposures. Clinicians should communicate this protection when counseling Veterans about genetic testing.

On-Site Nurse-Led Cancer Genetics Program Increases Cancer Genetic Testing Completion in Black Veterans.

PURPOSE: Telegenetics services can expand access to guideline-recommended cancer genetic testing. However, access is often not distributed equitably to all races and ethnicities. We evaluated the impact of an on-site nurse-led cancer genetics service in a diverse Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) oncology clinic on likelihood of germline testing (GT) completion. METHODS: We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study of patients who were referred for cancer genetics services at the Philadelphia VAMC between October 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022. We evaluated the association between genetics service (on-site v telegenetics) and likelihood of GT completion in a subcohort of new consults, excluding patients with prior consults and those referred for known history of germline mutations. RESULTS: A total of 238 Veterans, including 108 (45%) seen on site, were identified for cancer genetics services during the study period, with the majority referred for a personal (65%) or family (26%) history of cancer. In the subcohort of new consults, 121 Veterans (54% self-identified race/ethnicity [SIRE]-Black), including 60 (50%) seen on site, were included in the analysis of germline genetic testing completion. In a univariate analysis, patients who were seen by the on-site genetics service had 3.2-fold higher likelihood of completing GT (relative risk, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.89 to 5.48) compared with the telegenetics service. In multivariable regression analysis, the on-site genetics service was associated with higher likelihood of GT completion, but this association was only statistically significant in SIRE-Black compared with SIRE-White Veterans (adjusted RR, 4.78; 95% CI, 1.53 to 14.96; P < .001; P-interaction of race × genetics service = .016). CONCLUSION: An on-site nurse-led cancer genetics service embedded in a VAMC Oncology practice was associated with higher likelihood of germline genetic testing completion than a telegenetics service among self-identified Black Veterans.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Family Health History Platform to Identify and Manage Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining comprehensive family health history (FHH) to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) risk management in primary care settings is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk. DESIGN: Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk. INTERVENTIONS: Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later. MAIN MEASURES: McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively. KEY RESULTS: Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed. CONCLUSIONS: FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336.

Genetic counselors' experience with reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket cost for multi-cancer gene panel testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.

Multi-cancer gene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (hereditary cancer panels, HCPs) are widely available, and some laboratories have programs that limit patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) cost share. However, little is known about practices by cancer genetic counselors for discussing and ordering an HCP and how insurance reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket share impact these practices. We conducted a survey of cancer genetic counselors based in the United States through the National Society of Genetic Counselors to assess the impact of reimbursement and patient OOP share on ordering of an HCP and hereditary cancer genetic counseling. Data analyses were conducted using chi-square and t tests. We received 135 responses (16% response rate). We found that the vast majority of respondents (94%, 127/135) ordered an HCP for patients rather than single-gene tests to assess hereditary cancer predisposition. Two-thirds of respondents reported that their institution had no protocol related to discussing HCPs with patients. Most respondents (84%, 114/135) indicated clinical indications and patients' requests as important in selecting and ordering HCPs, while 42%, 57/135, considered reimbursement and patient OOP share factors important. We found statistically significant differences in reporting of insurance as a frequently used payment method for HCPs and in-person genetic counseling (84% versus 59%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Perceived patient willingness to pay more than $100 was significantly higher for HCPs than for genetic counseling(41% versus 22%, respectively, p < 0.01). In sum, genetic counselors' widespread selection and ordering of HCPs is driven more by clinical indications and patient preferences than payment considerations. Respondents perceived that testing is more often reimbursed by insurance than genetic counseling, and patients are more willing to pay for an HCP than for genetic counseling. Policy efforts should address this incongruence in reimbursement and patient OOP share. Patient-centered communication should educate patients on the benefit of genetic counseling.

Demographic Differences Among US Department of Veterans Affairs Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation to a Centralized VA Telehealth Program, VA Medical Centers, or the Community.

Importance: Telehealth enables access to genetics clinicians, but impact on care coordination is unknown. Objective: To assess care coordination and equity of genetic care delivered by centralized telehealth and traditional genetic care models. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included patients referred for genetic consultation from 2010 to 2017 with 2 years of follow-up in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Patients were excluded if they were referred for research, cytogenetic, or infectious disease testing, or if their care model could not be determined. Exposures: Genetic care models, which included VA-telehealth (ie, a centralized team of genetic counselors serving VA facilities nationwide), VA-traditional (ie, a regional service by clinical geneticists and genetic counselors), and non-VA care (ie, community care purchased by the VA). Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariate regression models were used to assess associations between patient and consultation characteristics and the type of genetic care model referral; consultation completion; and having 0, 1, or 2 or more cancer surveillance (eg, colonoscopy) and risk-reducing procedures (eg, bilateral mastectomy) within 2 years following referral. Results: In this study, 24 778 patients with genetics referrals were identified, including 12 671 women (51.1%), 13 193 patients aged 50 years or older (53.2%), 15 639 White patients (63.1%), and 15 438 patients with cancer-related referrals (62.3%). The VA-telehealth model received 14 580 of the 24 778 consultations (58.8%). Asian patients, American Indian or Alaskan Native patients, and Hawaiian or Pacific Islander patients were less likely to be referred to VA-telehealth than White patients (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84) compared with the VA-traditional model. Completing consultations was less likely with non-VA care than the VA-traditional model (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57); there were no differences in completing consultations between the VA models. Black patients were less likely to complete consultations than White patients (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76-0.93), but only if referred to the VA-telehealth model. Patients were more likely to have multiple cancer preventive procedures if they completed their consultations (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.40-1.72) but only if their consultations were completed with the VA-traditional model. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the VA-telehealth model was associated with improved access to genetics clinicians but also with exacerbated health care disparities and hindered care coordination. Addressing structural barriers and the needs and preferences of vulnerable subpopulations may complement the centralized telehealth approach, improve care coordination, and help mitigate health care disparities.

Influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings.

The landscape of payment for genetic testing has been changing, with an increase in the number of laboratories offering testing, larger panel offerings, and lower prices. To determine the influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on the ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings, we conducted semi-structured interviews with providers who conduct genetic counseling and order next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels purposefully recruited from 11 safety-net clinics and academic medical centers (AMCs) in California and North Carolina, states with diverse populations and divergent Medicaid expansion policies. Thematic analysis was done to identify themes related to the impact of reimbursement and out-of-pocket expenses on test ordering. Specific focus was put on differences between settings. Respondents from both safety-net clinics and AMCs reported that they are increasingly ordering panels instead of single-gene tests, and tests were ordered primarily from a few commercial laboratories. Surprisingly, safety-net clinics reported few barriers to testing related to cost, largely due to laboratory assistance with prior authorization requests and patient payment assistance programs that result in little to no patient out-of-pocket expenses. AMCs reported greater challenges navigating insurance issues, particularly prior authorization. Both groups cited non-coverage of genetic counseling as a major barrier to testing. Difficulty of access to cascade testing, particularly for family members that do not live in the United States, was also of concern. Long-term sustainability of laboratory payment assistance programs was a major concern; safety-net clinics were particularly concerned about access to testing without such programs. There were few differences between states. In conclusion, the use of laboratories with payment assistance programs reduces barriers to NGS panel testing among diverse populations. Such programs represent a major change to the financing and affordability of genetic testing. However, access to genetic counseling is a barrier and must be addressed to ensure equity in testing.

Primary care providers' responses to unsolicited Lynch syndrome secondary findings of varying clinical significance.

PURPOSE: How primary care providers (PCPs) respond to genomic secondary findings (SFs) of varying clinical significance (pathogenic, uncertain significance [VUS], or benign) is unknown. METHODS: We randomized 148 American Academy of Family Physicians members to review three reports with varying significance for Lynch syndrome. Participants provided open-ended responses about the follow-up they would address and organized the SF reports and five other topics in the order they would prioritize responding to them (1 = highest priority, 6 = lowest priority). RESULTS: PCPs suggested referrals more often for pathogenic variants or VUS than benign variants (72% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). PCPs were also more likely to address further workup, like a colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy, in response to pathogenic variants or VUS than benign variants (43% vs. 4%, p < 0.001). The likelihoods of addressing referrals or further workup were similar when PCPs reviewed pathogenic variants and VUS (both p > 0.46). SF reports were prioritized highest for pathogenic variants (2.7 for pathogenic variants, 3.6 for VUS, 4.3 for benign variants, all p ≤ 0.014). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that while PCPs appreciated the differences in clinical significance, disclosure of VUS as SFs would substantially increase downstream health-care utilization.

Integrating Germline Genetics Into Precision Oncology Practice in the Veterans Health Administration: Challenges and Opportunities.

OBJECTIVES: The advent of germline testing as a standard-of-care practice for certain tumor types and patients presents unique opportunities and challenges for the field of precision oncology. This article describes strategies to address workforce capacity, organizational structure, and genetics education needs within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with the expectation that these approaches may be applicable to other health care systems. OBSERVATIONS: Germline information can have health, reproductive, and psychosocial implications for veterans and their family members, which can pose challenges when delivering germline information in the setting of cancer care. Additional challenges include the complexity inherent in the interpretation of germline information, the national shortage of genetics professionals, limited awareness and knowledge about genetic principles among many clinicians, and organizational barriers, such as the inability to order genetic tests and receive results in the electronic health record. These challenges demand thoughtful implementation planning at the health care system level to develop sustainable strategies for the delivery of high-quality genetic services in precision oncology practice. CONCLUSIONS: The VA is uniquely positioned to address the integration of germline genetic testing into precision oncology practice due to its outsized role in treating veterans with cancer, training the health care workforce, and developing, testing, and implementing innovative models of clinical care.

An electronic family health history tool to identify and manage patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Approximately 3-10% of the population has an increased risk for colorectal cancer due to family history and warrants more frequent or intensive screening. Yet, < 50% of that high-risk population receives guideline-concordant care. Systematic collection of family health history and decision support may improve guideline-concordant screening for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. We seek to test the effectiveness of a web-based, systematic family health history collection tool and decision support platform (MeTree) to improve risk assessment and appropriate management of colorectal cancer risk among patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs primary care practices. METHODS: In this ongoing randomized controlled trial, primary care providers at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the Madison VA Medical Center are randomized to immediate intervention or wait-list control. Veterans are eligible if assigned to enrolled providers, have an upcoming primary care appointment, and have no conditions that would place them at increased risk for colorectal cancer (such as personal history, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease). Those with a recent lower endoscopy (e.g. colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy) are excluded. Immediate intervention patients put their family health history information into a web-based platform, MeTree, which provides both patient- and provider-facing decision support reports. Wait-list control patients access MeTree 12 months post-consent. The primary outcome is the risk-concordant colorectal cancer screening referral rate obtained via chart review. Secondary outcomes include patient completion of risk management recommendations (e.g. colonoscopy) and referral for genetic consultation. We will also conduct an economic analysis and an assessment of providers' experience with MeTree clinical decision support recommendations to inform future implementation efforts if the intervention is found to be effective. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of patient-collected family health history linked to decision support to promote risk-appropriate screening in a large healthcare system such as the Department of Veterans Affairs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02247336 . Registered on 25 September 2014.

Stakeholders' views on the value of outcomes from clinical genetic and genomic interventions.

PURPOSE: Robust evidence about the value of clinical genomic interventions (CGIs), such as genetic/genomic testing or clinical genetic evaluation, is limited. We obtained stakeholders' perspectives on outcomes from CGIs to help inform their value. METHODS: We used an adapted Delphi expert panel process. Two anonymous survey rounds assessed the value of 44 CGI outcomes and whether a third party should pay for them, with discussion in between rounds. RESULTS: Sixty-six panelists responded to the first-round survey and 60 to the second. Policy-makers/payers gave the lowest ratings for value and researchers gave the highest. Patients/consumers had the most uncertainty about value and payment by a third party. Uncertainty about value was observed when evidence of proven health benefit was lacking, potential harms outweighed benefits for reproductive outcomes, and outcomes had only personal utility for individuals or family members. Agreement about outcomes for which a third party should not pay included prevention through surgery with unproven health benefits, establishing ancestry, parental consanguinity, and paternity. CONCLUSION: Research is needed to understand factors contributing to uncertainty and stakeholder differences about the value of CGI outcomes. Reaching consensus will accelerate the creation of metrics to generate the evidence needed to inform value and guide policies that promote availability, uptake, and coverage of CGIs.

Precision Medicine for CRC Patients in the Veteran Population: State-of-the-Art, Challenges and Research Directions.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for ~9% of all cancers in the Veteran population, a fact which has focused a great deal of the attention of the VA's research and development efforts. A field-based meeting of CRC experts was convened to discuss both challenges and opportunities in precision medicine for CRC. This group, designated as the VA Colorectal Cancer Cell-genomics Consortium (VA4C), discussed advances in CRC biology, biomarkers, and imaging for early detection and prevention. There was also a discussion of precision treatment involving fluorescence-guided surgery, targeted chemotherapies and immunotherapies, and personalized cancer treatment approaches. The overarching goal was to identify modalities that might ultimately lead to personalized cancer diagnosis and treatment. This review summarizes the findings of this VA field-based meeting, in which much of the current knowledge on CRC prescreening and treatment was discussed. It was concluded that there is a need and an opportunity to identify new targets for both the prevention of CRC and the development of effective therapies for advanced disease. Also, developing methods integrating genomic testing with tumoroid-based clinical drug response might lead to more accurate diagnosis and prognostication and more effective personalized treatment of CRC.

Gnathodiaphyseal dysplasia: report of a family with a novel mutation of the ANO5 gene.

Gnathodiaphyseal dysplasia (GDD) is a rare autosomal dominant disorder characterized by florid osseous dysplasia of the jaws, bone fragility, and diaphyseal cortical thickening and bowing of long bones. We present a family with previously undiagnosed GDD. The disorder was identified by the characteristic gnathic and skeletal manifestations in the father. Clinical and radiologic examination of the patient's son also revealed the characteristic features of GDD. Gene sequencing revealed a novel mutation (c. 1067 G>A, p. Cys356 Tyr) in the ANO5 gene, which is causative for GDD. This mutation was predicted to be detrimental by computational analyses and by structural modeling of the protein. The implications for recognition and management of this disease are discussed.

Securing and Documenting Cancer Family History in the Age of the Electronic Medical Record.

Family health history is one of the least expensive, most useful, and most underused methods available to conduct assessments of the genetic aspect of a condition or to target the need for a genetic evaluation. This article introduces to the surgical oncologist the reason and process of collecting family history information. As medical records shift from paper to electronic formats, pedigree drawings are not readily available within the electronic health records. International efforts are underway to develop searchable, updatable, and interoperable formats that can collect family history information to inform clinical decision support for genetic risk assessment.

Coronary Artery Calcium Improves Risk Assessment in Adults With a Family History of Premature Coronary Heart Disease: Results From Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of coronary artery calcium (CAC) or carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) among asymptomatic adults with a family history (FH) of premature coronary heart disease is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis enrolled 6814 adults without known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Hard ASCVD events were ascertained over a median follow-up of 10.2 years. We estimated adjusted-hazard ratios for CAC and CIMT categories using Cox regression, both within and across FH status groups. Improvement in discrimination with CAC or CIMT added to variables from the ASCVD pooled cohort equation was also evaluated using receiver-operating characteristic curve and likelihood ratio analysis. Of 6125 individuals (62±10 years; 47% men) who reported information on FH, 1262 (21%) had an FH of premature coronary heart disease. Among these, 104 hard ASCVD events occurred. Crude incidence rates (per 1000 person-years) for hard ASCVD were 4.4 for CAC, 0 (n=574; 46% of the sample); 8.8 for CAC, 1 to 99 (n=368); 14.9 for CAC, 100 to 399 (n=178); and 20.8 for CAC, ≥400 (n=142). Relative to CAC=0, adjusted hard ASCVD hazard ratios for each CAC category among persons with an FH were 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-2.87), 2.45 (1.31-4.58), and 2.80 (1.44-5.43), respectively. However, there was no increased adjusted hazard for hard ASCVD in high versus low CIMT categories. In participants with an FH of premature coronary heart disease, CAC improved discrimination of hard ASCVD events (P<0.001). However, CIMT did not discriminate ASCVD (P=0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of individuals reporting FH have zero CAC and may receive less net benefit from aspirin or statin therapy. Among persons with an FH, CAC is a robust marker of absolute and relative risk of ASCVD, whereas CIMT is not.

Delivery of clinical genetic consultative services in the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the delivery of genetic consultative services for adults, we examined the prevalence and organizational determinants of genetic consult availability and the organization of these services in the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: We conducted a Web-based survey of Veterans Health Administration clinical leaders. We summarized facility characteristics using descriptive statistics. Multivariate logistic regression assessed associations between organizational characteristics and consult availability. RESULTS: We received 353 survey responses from key informants representing 141 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Clinicians could obtain genetic consults at 110 (78%) Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Cancer genetic and neurogenetic consults were most common. Academic affiliation (odds ratio = 3.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-8.6) and provider education about genetics (odds ratio = 2.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-7.8) were significantly associated with consult availability. The traditional model of multidisciplinary specialty clinics or coordinated services between geneticists and other providers was most prevalent, although variability in the organization of these services was described, with consults available on-site, at another Veterans Affairs Medical Center, via telegenetics, or at non-Veterans Health Administration facilities. The emerging model of nongeneticists integrating genetics into their practices was also reported, with considerable variability by specialty. CONCLUSION: Both traditional and emerging models for genetic consultation are available in the Veterans Health Administration; however, there is variability in service organization that could influence quality of care.

Factors influencing organizational adoption and implementation of clinical genetic services.

PURPOSE: We sought to identify characteristics of genetic services that facilitate or hinder adoption. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured key informant interviews in five clinical specialties (primary care, medical oncology, neurology, cardiology, pathology/laboratory medicine) within 13 Veterans Administration facilities. RESULTS: Genetic services (defined as genetic testing and consultation) were not typically characterized by informants (n = 64) as advantageous for their facilities or their patients; compatible with organizational norms of low cost and high clinical impact; or applicable to patient populations or norms of clinical care. Furthermore, genetic services had not been systematically adopted in most facilities because of their complexity: knowledge of and expertise on genetic testing was limited, and organizational barriers to utilization of genetic services were formidable. The few facilities that had some success with implementation of genetic services had knowledgeable clinicians interested in developing services and organizational-level facilitators such as accessible genetic test-ordering processes. CONCLUSION: Adoption and implementation of genetic services will require a multilevel effort that includes education of providers and administrators, opportunities for observing the benefits of genetic medicine, strategies for reducing the complexity of genomic medicine, expanded strategies for accessing genetics expertise and streamlining utilization, and resources dedicated to assessing the value of genetic information for the outcomes that matter to health-care organizations.

A cancer genetics toolkit improves access to genetic services through documentation and use of the family history by primary-care clinicians.

PURPOSE: We developed, implemented, and evaluated a multicomponent cancer genetics toolkit designed to improve recognition and appropriate referral of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes. METHODS: We evaluated toolkit implementation in the women's clinics at a large Veterans Administration medical center using mixed methods, including pre-post semistructured interviews, clinician surveys, and chart reviews, and during implementation, monthly tracking of genetic consultation requests and use of a reminder in the electronic health record. We randomly sampled 10% of progress notes 6 months before (n = 139) and 18 months during implementation (n = 677). RESULTS: The toolkit increased cancer family history documentation by almost 10% (26.6% pre- and 36.3% postimplementation). The reminder was a key component of the toolkit; when used, it was associated with a twofold increase in cancer family history documentation (odds ratio = 2.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.39-3.15), and the history was more complete. Patients whose clinicians completed the reminder were twice as likely to be referred for genetic consultation (4.1-9.6%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: A multicomponent approach to the systematic collection and use of family history by primary-care clinicians increased access to genetic services.