Racial disparities in breast cancer risk factors and risk management.

Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes are well described across the spectrum of screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Breast cancer mortality is markedly elevated for Non-Hispanic Black women compared with other racial and ethnic groups, with multifactorial causes. Here, we aim to reduce this burden by identifying disparities in breast cancer risk factors, risk assessment, and risk management before breast cancer is diagnosed. We describe a reproductive profile and modifiable risk factors specific to the development of triple-negative breast cancer. We also propose that screening strategies should be both risk- and race-based, given the prevalence of early-onset triple-negative breast cancer in young Black women. We emphasize the importance of early risk assessment and identification of patients at hereditary and familial risk and discuss indications for a high-risk referral. We discuss the subtleties following genetic testing and highlight "uncertain" genetic testing results and risk estimation challenges in women who test negative. We trace aspects of the obesity epidemic in the Black community to infant feeding patterns and emphasize healthy eating and activity. Finally, we discuss building an environment of trust to foster adherence to recommendations, follow-up care, and participation in clinical trials. Addressing relevant social determinants of health; educating patients and clinicians on factors impacting disparities in outcomes; and encouraging participation in targeted, culturally sensitive research are essential to best serve all communities.

Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: The effects of breast cancer incidence changes and advances in screening and treatment on outcomes of different screening strategies are not well known. Objective: To estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies. Design, Setting, and Population: Comparison of outcomes using 6 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses. Exposures: Thirty-six screening strategies with varying start ages (40, 45, 50 years) and stop ages (74, 79 years) with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) annually, biennially, or a combination of intervals. Strategies were evaluated for all women and for Black women, assuming 100% screening adherence and "real-world" treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, percent reduction in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained), harms (false-positive recalls, benign biopsies, overdiagnosis), and number of mammograms per 1000 women. Results: Biennial screening with DBT starting at age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years averted a median of 8.2, 7.5, or 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened, respectively, vs no screening. Biennial DBT screening at age 40 to 74 years (vs no screening) was associated with a 30.0% breast cancer mortality reduction, 1376 false-positive recalls, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to those for DBT but had more false-positive recalls. Annual screening increased benefits but resulted in more false-positive recalls and overdiagnosed cases. Benefit-to-harm ratios of continuing screening until age 79 years were similar or superior to stopping at age 74. In all strategies, women with higher-than-average breast cancer risk, higher breast density, and lower comorbidity level experienced greater screening benefits than other groups. Annual screening of Black women from age 40 to 49 years with biennial screening thereafter reduced breast cancer mortality disparities while maintaining similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs as for all women. Conclusions: This modeling analysis suggests that biennial mammography screening starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality and increases life-years gained per mammogram. More intensive screening for women with greater risk of breast cancer diagnosis or death can maintain similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs and reduce mortality disparities.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, including BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53, and recommended approaches to genetic counseling/testing and care strategies in individuals with these P/LP variants. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize important updates regarding: (1) a new section for transgender, nonbinary and gender diverse people who have a hereditary predisposition to cancer focused on risk reduction strategies for ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer; and (2) testing criteria and management associated with TP53 P/LP variants and Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

Examining Associations Among Sexual Health, Unmet Care Needs, and Distress in Breast and Gynecologic Cancer Survivors.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated breast and gynecologic cancer patients' sexual function, unmet needs related to sexuality, and distress. DATA SOURCES: Secondary analyses of a cross-sectional survey study evaluated measures of sexual function (Female Sexual Function Index [FSFI]), unmet needs (Supportive Care Needs Scale), and distress (Patient Health Questionnaire). χ2 test, t tests, and analysis of variances (ANOVAs) tested bivariate relationships. Subgroup comparisons were made based on the Female Sexual Function Index sexual dysfunction diagnostic cut-off score (<26.55; lower scores indicate greater dysfunction). A regression model tested associations between sexual function and unmet needs with distress as the outcome variable. CONCLUSION: Clinically significant sexual dysfunction was common in this cohort of women. In multivariate modeling, worse sexual function and greater unmet sexuality needs related to greater distress. Future work should explore reasons behind the high levels of sexual dysfunction and unmet needs in female survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: It is important to routinely screen for sexual health concerns among female cancer survivors at all phases of the cancer trajectory including years posttreatment.

Clinician-Reported Impact of Germline Multigene Panel Testing on Cancer Risk Management Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: With increased adoption of multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer, management guidelines now include a wider range of predisposition genes. Yet little is known about whether MGPT results prompt changes to clinicians' risk management recommendations and whether those recommendations adhere to guidelines. METHODS: We assessed cancer risk management recommendations made by clinicians ordering MGPT for hereditary cancer at a diagnostic laboratory using an internet-based survey. We received paired pre- and posttest responses for 2172 patients (response rate = 14.3%). Unpaired posttest responses were received in 168 additional patients with positive results. All tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Clinicians reported a change in risk management recommendations for 76.6% of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant, with changes to surveillance being most common (71.1%), followed by surgical (33.6%), chemoprevention (15.1%), and clinical trial (9.4%) recommendations. Clinicians recommended risk-reducing interventions more often for patients with pathogenic variants in high-risk than moderate-risk genes (P < .001), whereas surveillance recommendations were similar for high-risk and moderate-risk genes. Guideline adherence was high for surveillance (86.3%) and surgical (79.6%) recommendations. Changes to risk management recommendations occurred in 8.8% and 7.6% of patients with uncertain and negative results, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians report frequent changes to cancer risk management recommendations based on positive results in both high-risk and moderate-risk genes. Reported introduction of interventions in patients with inconclusive and negative results is rare and adherence to practice guidelines is high in patients with positive results, suggesting a low probability of harm resulting from MGPT.

Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic in a nationwide, insured population.

PURPOSE: The early months of the COVID-19 pandemic led to reduced cancer screenings and delayed cancer surgeries. We used insurance claims data to understand how breast cancer incidence and treatment after diagnosis changed nationwide over the course of the pandemic. METHODS: Using the Optum Research Database from January 2017 to March 2021, including approximately 19 million US adults with commercial health insurance, we identified new breast cancer diagnoses and first treatment after diagnosis. We compared breast cancer incidence and proportion of newly diagnosed patients receiving pre-operative systemic therapy pre-COVID, in the first 2 months of the COVID pandemic and in the later part of the COVID pandemic. RESULTS: Average monthly breast cancer incidence was 19.3 (95% CI 19.1-19.5) cases per 100,000 women and men pre-COVID, 11.6 (95% CI 10.8-12.4) per 100,000 in April-May 2020, and 19.7 (95% CI 19.3-20.1) per 100,000 in June 2020-February 2021. Use of pre-operative systemic therapy was 12.0% (11.7-12.4) pre-COVID, 37.7% (34.9-40.7) for patients diagnosed March-April 2020, and 14.8% (14.0-15.7) for patients diagnosed May 2020-January 2021. The changes in breast cancer incidence across the pandemic did not vary by demographic factors. Use of pre-operative systemic therapy across the pandemic varied by geographic region, but not by area socioeconomic deprivation or race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION: In this US-insured population, the dramatic changes in breast cancer incidence and the use of pre-operative systemic therapy experienced in the first 2 months of the pandemic did not persist, although a modest change in the initial management of breast cancer continued.

Greater financial toxicity relates to greater distress and worse quality of life among breast and gynecologic cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity includes distress and burden from cancer-related costs. Women are more likely to experience worse cancer-related financial outcomes than men. This study evaluated breast and gynecologic cancer patients' subjective experiences of financial toxicity and associations with distress and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study included measures of financial toxicity (Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity [COST] Version 2), distress (Patient Health Questionnaire), and QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy). Chi-square, t-tests, and ANOVAs examined bivariate relationships. Two regression models tested associations between financial toxicity and distress and QOL, controlling for covariates. Financial toxicity subgroups were compared based on a validated grading system. RESULTS: Participants (N = 273; 74% breast cancer) averaged 54.65 years (SD = 12.08), were 3.42 years (SD = 4.20) post-diagnosis, and 33% reported cancer-related change in employment status. Financial toxicity was "mild" overall (COST M = 26.11, SD = 11.14); 32% worried about cancer-related financial problems (quite a bit/very much; item-level analysis). Worse financial toxicity related to younger age (p < 0.001), identifying as a non-Asian minority (p = 0.03) or Hispanic (p = 0.01), being single (p < 0.001), lower education (p = 0.004), lower income (p < 0.001), late-stage disease (p = 0.001), recurrent disease (p = 0.004), and active treatment (p < 0.001). In separate multivariable models, greater financial toxicity related to greater distress (ß = -0.45 p < 0.001) and worse QOL (ß = 0.58, p < 0.001). Financial toxicity subgroups reported clinically significant differences in distress and QOL (p's < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer-related financial burden is associated with pervasive negative effects and may impact subgroups differently. Future research should explore financial experiences across subgroups, aiming to better identify those at risk and build targeted interventions.

Comprehensive Breast Cancer Risk Assessment for CHEK2 and ATM Pathogenic Variant Carriers Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score and the Tyrer-Cuzick Model.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer risks for CHEK2 and ATM pathogenic variant (PV) carriers are modified by an 86-single nucleotide polymorphism polygenic risk score (PRS) and individual clinical factors. Here, we describe comprehensive risk prediction models for women of European ancestry combining PV status, PRS, and individual clinical variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included deidentified clinical records from 358,095 women of European ancestry who received testing with a multigene panel (September 2013 to November 2019). Model development included CHEK2 PV carriers (n = 4,286), ATM PV carriers (n = 2,666), and women negative for other breast cancer risk gene PVs (n = 351,143). Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for familial cancer history. Risk estimates incorporating PV status, PRS, and Tyrer-Cuzick v7.02 were calculated using a Fixed-Stratified method that accounts for correlations between risk factors. Stratification of PV carriers into risk categories on the basis of remaining lifetime risk (RLR) was assessed in independent cohorts of PV carriers. RESULTS: ORs for association of PV status with breast cancer were 2.01 (95% CI, 1.88 to 2.16) and 1.83 (95% CI, 1.68 to 2.00) for CHEK2 and ATM PV carriers, respectively. ORs for PRS per one standard deviation were 1.51 (95% CI, 1.37 to 1.66) and 1.45 (95% CI, 1.30 to 1.64) in CHEK2 and ATM PV carriers, respectively. Using the combined model (PRS plus Tyrer-Cuzick plus PV status), RLR was low (≤ 20%) for 24.2% of CHEK2 PV carriers, medium (20%-50%) for 63.8%, and high (> 50%) for 12.0%. Among ATM PV carriers, RLR was low for 31.5% of patients, medium for 58.5%, and high for 9.7%. CONCLUSION: In CHEK2 and ATM PV carriers, risk assessment including PRS, Tyrer-Cuzick, and PV status has the potential for more precise direction of screening and prevention strategies.

Benchmark Method for Cost Computations Across Health Care Systems: Cost of Care per Patient per Day in Breast Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: To estimate the value of cancer care and to compare value among episodes of care, a transparent, reproducible, and standardized cost computation methodology is needed. Charges, claims, and reimbursements are related to cost but are nontransparent and proprietary. We developed a method to measure the cost of the following phases of care: (1) initial treatment with curative intent, (2) surveillance and survivorship care, and (3) relapse and end-of-life care. METHODS: We combined clinical data from our electronic health record, the state cancer registry, and the Social Security Death Index. We analyzed the care of patients with breast cancer and mapped Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes to the corresponding cost conversion factor and date in the CMS Medicare fee schedule. To account for varying duration of episodes of care, we computed a cost of care per day (CCPD) for each patient. RESULTS: Median CCPD for initial treatment was $29.45 in US dollars (USD), the CCPD for surveillance and survivorship care was $2.45 USD, and the CCPD for relapse care was $13.80 USD. Among the three breast cancer types (hormone receptor-positive or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-negative, HER2-positive, and triple-negative), there was no difference in CCPD. Relapsed patients in the most expensive surveillance CCPD group had significantly shorter survival. CONCLUSION: We developed a method to identify high-value oncology care-cost of care per patient per day (CCPD)-in episodes of initial, survivorship, and relapse care. The methodology can help identify positive deviants (who have developed best practices) delivering high-value care. Merging our data with claims data from third-party payers can increase the accuracy and validity of the CCPD.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer and recommended approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This manuscript focuses on cancer risk and risk management for BRCA-related breast/ovarian cancer syndrome and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Carriers of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant have an excessive risk for both breast and ovarian cancer that warrants consideration of more intensive screening and preventive strategies. There is also evidence that risks of prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer are elevated in these carriers. Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a highly penetrant cancer syndrome associated with a high lifetime risk for cancer, including soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, premenopausal breast cancer, colon cancer, gastric cancer, adrenocortical carcinoma, and brain tumors.

Psychosocial outcomes following germline multigene panel testing in an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the psychological outcomes of germline multigene panel testing, particularly among diverse patients and those with moderate-risk pathogenic variants (PVs). METHODS: Study participants (N = 1264) were counseled and tested with a 25- or 28-gene panel and completed a 3-month postresult survey including the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA). RESULTS: The mean age was 52 years, 80% were female, and 70% had cancer; 45% were non-Hispanic White, 37% were Hispanic, 10% were Asian, 3% were Black, and 5% had another race/ethnicity. Approximately 28% had a high school education or less, and 23% were non-English-speaking. The genetic test results were as follows: 7% had a high-risk PV, 6% had a moderate-risk PV, 35% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 52% were negative. Most participants (92%) had a total MICRA score ≤ 38, which corresponded to a mean response of "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacting negatively to results. A multivariate analysis found that mean total MICRA scores were significantly higher (more uncertainty/distress) among high- and moderate-risk PV carriers (29.7 and 24.8, respectively) than those with a VUS or negative results (17.4 and 16.1, respectively). Having cancer or less education was associated with a significantly higher total MICRA score; race/ethnicity was not associated with the total MICRA score. High- and moderate-risk PV carriers did not differ significantly from one another in the total MICRA score, uncertainty, distress, or positive experiences. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse population undergoing genetic counseling and multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk, the psychological response corresponded to test results and showed low distress and uncertainty. Further studies are needed to assess patient understanding and subsequent cancer screening among patients from diverse backgrounds. LAY SUMMARY: Multigene panel tests for hereditary cancer have become widespread despite concerns about adverse psychological reactions among carriers of moderate-risk pathogenic variants (mutations) and among carriers of variants of uncertain significance. This large study of an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients undergoing panel testing found that 92% "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacted negatively to results. Somewhat higher uncertainty and distress were identified among carriers of high- and moderate-risk pathogenic variants, and lower levels were identified among those with a variant of uncertain significance or a negative result. Although the psychological response corresponded to risk, reactions to testing were favorable, regardless of results.

Insights From a Temporal Assessment of Increases in US Private Payer Coverage of Tumor Sequencing From 2015 to 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the temporal trajectory of insurance coverage for next-generation tumor sequencing (sequencing) by private US payers, describe the characteristics of coverage adopters and nonadopters, and explore adoption trends relative to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' National Coverage Determination (CMS NCD) for sequencing. METHODS: We identified payers with positive coverage (adopters) or negative coverage (nonadopters) of sequencing on or before April 1, 2019, and abstracted their characteristics including size, membership in the BlueCross BlueShield Association, and whether they used a third-party policy. Using descriptive statistics, payer characteristics were compared between adopters and nonadopters and between pre-NCD and post-NCD adopters. An adoption timeline was constructed. RESULTS: Sixty-nine payers had a sequencing policy. Positive coverage started November 30, 2015, with 1 payer and increased to 33 (48%) as of April 1, 2019. Adopters were less likely to be BlueCross BlueShield members (P < .05) and more likely to use a third-party policy (P < .001). Fifty-eight percent of adopters were small payers. Among adopters, 52% initiated coverage pre-NCD over a 25-month period and 48% post-NCD over 17 months. CONCLUSIONS: We found an increase, but continued variability, in coverage over 3.5 years. Temporal analyses revealed important trends: the possible contribution of the CMS NCD to a faster pace of coverage adoption, the interdependence in coverage timing among BlueCross BlueShield members, the impact of using a third-party policy on coverage timing, and the importance of small payers in early adoption. Our study is a step toward systematic temporal research of coverage for precision medicine, which will inform policy and affordability assessments.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 1.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes, and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with syndromes associated with an increased risk of these cancers. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments, examine relevant new data, and reevaluate and update recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding criteria for high-penetrance genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer beyond BRCA1/2, pancreas screening and genes associated with pancreatic cancer, genetic testing for the purpose of systemic therapy decision-making, and testing for people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

Automatic inference of BI-RADS final assessment categories from narrative mammography report findings.

We propose an efficient natural language processing approach for inferring the BI-RADS final assessment categories by analyzing only the mammogram findings reported by the mammographer in narrative form. The proposed hybrid method integrates semantic term embedding with distributional semantics, producing a context-aware vector representation of unstructured mammography reports. A large corpus of unannotated mammography reports (300,000) was used to learn the context of the key-terms using a distributional semantics approach, and the trained model was applied to generate context-aware vector representations of the reports annotated with BI-RADS category (22,091). The vectorized reports were utilized to train a supervised classifier to derive the BI-RADS assessment class. Even though the majority of the proposed embedding pipeline is unsupervised, the classifier was able to recognize substantial semantic information for deriving the BI-RADS categorization not only on a holdout internal testset and also on an external validation set (1900 reports). Our proposed method outperforms a recently published domain-specific rule-based system and could be relevant for evaluating concordance between radiologists. With minimal requirement for task specific customization, the proposed method can be easily transferable to a different domain to support large scale text mining or derivation of patient phenotype.

From the Past to the Present: Insurer Coverage Frameworks for Next-Generation Tumor Sequencing.

Next-generation sequencing promises major advancements in precision medicine but faces considerable challenges with insurance coverage. These challenges are especially important to address in oncology in which next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) holds a particular promise, guiding the use of life-saving or life-prolonging therapies. Payers' coverage decision making on NGTS is challenging because this revolutionary technology pushes the very boundaries of the underlying framework used in coverage decisions. Some experts have called for the adaptation of the coverage framework to make it better equipped for assessing NGTS. Medicare's recent decision to cover NGTS makes this topic particularly urgent to examine. In this article, we discussed the previously proposed approaches for adaptation of the NGTS coverage framework, highlighted their innovations, and outlined remaining gaps in their ability to assess the features of NGTS. We then compared the three approaches with Medicare's national coverage determination for NGTS and discussed its implications for US private payers as well as for other technologies and clinical areas. We focused on US payers because analyses of coverage approaches and policies in the large and complex US health care system may inform similar efforts in other countries. We concluded that further adaptation of the coverage framework will facilitate a better suited assessment of NGTS and future genomics innovations.

Unmet need for clinician engagement regarding financial toxicity after diagnosis of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding whether growing awareness of the financial toxicity of a cancer diagnosis and its treatment has increased clinician engagement or changed the needs of current patients. METHODS: The authors surveyed patients with early-stage breast cancer who were identified through population-based sampling from 2 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions and their physicians. The authors described responses from approximately 73% of surgeons (370 surgeons), 61% of medical oncologists (306 medical oncologists), 67% of radiation oncologists (169 radiation oncologists), and 68% of patients (2502 patients). RESULTS: Approximately one-half (50.9%) of responding medical oncologists reported that someone in their practice often or always discusses financial burden with patients, as did 15.6% of surgeons and 43.2% of radiation oncologists. Patients indicated that financial toxicity remains common: 21.5% of white patients and 22.5% of Asian patients had to cut down spending on food, as did 45.2% of black and 35.8% of Latina patients. Many patients desired to talk to providers about the financial impact of cancer (15.2% of whites, 31.1% of blacks, 30.3% of Latinas, and 25.4% of Asians). Unmet patient needs for engagement with physicians about financial concerns were common. Of 945 women who worried about finances, 679 (72.8%) indicated that physicians and their staff did not help. Of 523 women who desired to talk to providers regarding the impact of breast cancer on employment or finances, 283 (55.4%) reported no relevant discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients report inadequate clinician engagement in the management of financial toxicity, even though many providers believe that they make services available. Clinician assessment and communication regarding financial toxicity must improve; cure at the cost of financial ruin is unacceptable. Cancer 2018;000:000-000. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Gaps in Incorporating Germline Genetic Testing Into Treatment Decision-Making for Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Purpose Genetic testing for breast cancer risk is evolving rapidly, with growing use of multiple-gene panels that can yield uncertain results. However, little is known about the context of such testing or its impact on treatment. Methods A population-based sample of patients with breast cancer diagnosed in 2014 to 2015 and identified by two SEER registries (Georgia and Los Angeles) were surveyed about genetic testing experiences (N = 3,672; response rate, 68%). Responses were merged with SEER data. A patient subgroup at higher pretest risk of pathogenic mutation carriage was defined according to genetic testing guidelines. Patients' attending surgeons were surveyed about genetic testing and results management. We examined patterns and correlates of genetic counseling and testing and the impact of results on bilateral mastectomy (BLM) use. Results Six hundred sixty-six patients reported genetic testing. Although two thirds of patients were tested before surgical treatment, patients without private insurance more often experienced delays. Approximately half of patients (57% at higher pretest risk, 42% at average risk) discussed results with a genetic counselor. Patients with pathogenic mutations in BRCA1/2 or another gene had the highest rates of BLM (higher risk, 80%; average risk, 85%); however, BLM was also common among patients with genetic variants of uncertain significance (VUS; higher risk, 43%; average risk, 51%). Surgeons' confidence in discussing testing increased with volume of patients with breast cancer, but many surgeons (higher volume, 24%; lower volume, 50%) managed patients with BRCA1/2 VUS the same as patients with BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations. Conclusion Many patients with breast cancer are tested without ever seeing a genetic counselor. Half of average-risk patients with VUS undergo BLM, suggesting a limited understanding of results that some surgeons share. These findings emphasize the need to address challenges in personalized communication about genetic testing.

Dynamic strategy for personalized medicine: An application to metastatic breast cancer.

We compare methods to develop an adaptive strategy for therapy choice in a class of breast cancer patients, as an example of approaches to personalize therapies for individual characteristics and each patient's response to therapy. Our model maintains a Markov belief about the effectiveness of the different therapies and updates it as therapies are administered and tumor images are observed, reflecting tumor response. We compare three different approximate methods to solve our analytical model against standard medical practice and show significant potential benefit of the computed dynamic strategies to limit tumor growth and to reduce the number of time periods patients are given chemotherapy, with its attendant side effects.

Payer Coverage for Hereditary Cancer Panels: Barriers, Opportunities, and Implications for the Precision Medicine Initiative.

Background: Hereditary cancer panels (HCPs), testing for multiple genes and syndromes, are rapidly transforming cancer risk assessment but are controversial and lack formal insurance coverage. We aimed to identify payers' perspectives on barriers to HCP coverage and opportunities to address them. Comprehensive cancer risk assessment is highly relevant to the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), and payers' considerations could inform PMI's efforts. We describe our findings and discuss them in the context of PMI priorities. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 major US payers, covering >160 million lives. We used the framework approach of qualitative research to design, conduct, and analyze interviews, and used simple frequencies to further describe findings. Results: Barriers to HCP coverage included poor fit with coverage frameworks (100%); insufficient evidence (100%); departure from pedigree/family history-based testing toward genetic screening (91%); lacking rigor in the HCP hybrid research/clinical setting (82%); and patient transparency and involvement concerns (82%). Addressing barriers requires refining HCP-indicated populations (82%); developing evidence of actionability (82%) and pathogenicity/penetrance (64%); creating infrastructure and standards for informing and recontacting patients (45%); separating research from clinical use in the hybrid clinical-research setting (44%); and adjusting coverage frameworks (18%). Conclusions: Leveraging opportunities suggested by payers to address HCP coverage barriers is essential to ensure patients' access to evolving HCPs. Our findings inform 3 areas of the PMI: addressing insurance coverage to secure access to future PMI discoveries; incorporating payers' evidentiary requirements into PMI's research agenda; and leveraging payers' recommendations and experience to keep patients informed and involved.