A call for unity in DEIJ efforts using a proposed framework for Education, Recruitment, Retainment, Research, and Active outreach (ERA) for genetic counselors in the United States.

Genetic counselors, like many other healthcare providers, play a vital role in genomic health care. As a profession, we, along with our colleagues and students, have recognized the need to improve and incorporate diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) within our daily ways of practice to help create access to genomic technologies. In order to create systemic change and focus on unity, open communication, and transparency, we introduce a suggested framework called ERA (Education, Recruitment, Retainment, Research, and Active Outreach). This framework would benefit a genetic counselor throughout various stages of their career, from student to practicing genetic counselor, and can be broadly applied to all specialties of genomic medicine. Different iterations of DEIJ efforts have arisen in the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC), from the D&I (Diversity and Inclusion) Task Force to the J.E.D.I (justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion) committee. The lack of recorded history of these previous efforts and the lack of communication between current DEIJ organizations is one of the many reasons the ERA framework demands unity and transparency to achieve sustainable positive change. Genetic counselors must unite and work collaboratively to conduct and promote DEIJ efforts, so the benefits of genomic medicine can be realized by all.

Clinical Actionability of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling for Management of Rare or Refractory Cancers.

BACKGROUND: The frequency with which targeted tumor sequencing results will lead to implemented change in care is unclear. Prospective assessment of the feasibility and limitations of using genomic sequencing is critically important. METHODS: A prospective clinical study was conducted on 100 patients with diverse-histology, rare, or poor-prognosis cancers to evaluate the clinical actionability of a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified, comprehensive genomic profiling assay (FoundationOne), using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumors. The primary objectives were to assess utility, feasibility, and limitations of genomic sequencing for genomically guided therapy or other clinical purpose in the setting of a multidisciplinary molecular tumor board. RESULTS: Of the tumors from the 92 patients with sufficient tissue, 88 (96%) had at least one genomic alteration (average 3.6, range 0-10). Commonly altered pathways included p53 (46%), RAS/RAF/MAPK (rat sarcoma; rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma; mitogen-activated protein kinase) (45%), receptor tyrosine kinases/ligand (44%), PI3K/AKT/mTOR (phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase; protein kinase B; mammalian target of rapamycin) (35%), transcription factors/regulators (31%), and cell cycle regulators (30%). Many low frequency but potentially actionable alterations were identified in diverse histologies. Use of comprehensive profiling led to implementable clinical action in 35% of tumors with genomic alterations, including genomically guided therapy, diagnostic modification, and trigger for germline genetic testing. CONCLUSION: Use of targeted next-generation sequencing in the setting of an institutional molecular tumor board led to implementable clinical action in more than one third of patients with rare and poor-prognosis cancers. Major barriers to implementation of genomically guided therapy were clinical status of the patient and drug access. Early and serial sequencing in the clinical course and expanded access to genomically guided early-phase clinical trials and targeted agents may increase actionability. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Identification of key factors that facilitate use of genomic tumor testing results and implementation of genomically guided therapy may lead to enhanced benefit for patients with rare or difficult to treat cancers. Clinical use of a targeted next-generation sequencing assay in the setting of an institutional molecular tumor board led to implementable clinical action in over one third of patients with rare and poor prognosis cancers. The major barriers to implementation of genomically guided therapy were clinical status of the patient and drug access both on trial and off label. Approaches to increase actionability include early and serial sequencing in the clinical course and expanded access to genomically guided early phase clinical trials and targeted agents.

A Qualitative Exploration of Oncology Clinician's Needs for PGT-M Discussions in Clinical Practice.

Purpose: Oncology clinicians are appropriately positioned to facilitate discussions of assisted reproductive technologies including preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disease (PGT-M), in the context of cancer treatment or surveillance. Yet, reproductive services, including PGT-M, remain one of the least implemented services in oncology. No studies to date have explored which practice resources the clinicians need to increase knowledge of PGT-M. The objective of this study was to explore the specific needs of oncology clinicians to help maximize the reproductive potential of young adult patients with hereditary cancers. Methods: Participants were recruited through notices circulated on social media platforms and snowball sampling. Participants completed a brief online survey to confirm eligibility. Eligible participants completed a virtual, semi-structured interview. Interviews focused on clinician experiences with PGT-M and initiating referrals to fertility specialists. Thematic analysis was conducted using a constant comparative approach to identify current clinical practices. Results: This study found that PGT-M discussions are not necessarily within the scope of responsibilities for oncology clinicians owing to prioritization of cancer treatment and overall lack of knowledge. Participants need accessible resources and timely support for reproductive planning in the context of cancer treatment. Participants desire a streamlined referral pathway to professionals trained in oncofertility to help address their patient's reproductive needs. Conclusion: Our study identified that educational and referral resources to reproductive specialists are needed to maximize reproductive potential across the cancer continuum. These findings provide a foundation for larger studies that can inform standard-of-care recommendations in the emerging field of oncofertility.

Identification of genetic counseling service delivery models in practice: a report from the NSGC Service Delivery Model Task Force.

Increasing demand for genetic services has resulted in the need to evaluate current service delivery models (SDMs) and consider approaches that improve access to and efficiency of genetic counseling (GC). This study aimed to describe SDMs currently used by the GC community. The NSGC membership was surveyed regarding the use of four SDMs: in-person GC, telephone GC, group GC, and telegenetics GC. Variables related to access and components of use were also surveyed, including: appointment availability, time-per-patient, number of patients seen, billing, and geographic accessiblity. Seven hundred one usable responses were received. Of these, 54.7 % reported using an in-person SDM exclusively. The remainder (45.3 %) reported using multiple SDMs. Telephone, group and telegenetics GC were used often or always by 8.0 %, 3.2 % and 2.2 % of respondents, respectively. Those using an in-person SDM reported the ability to see the highest number of patients per week (p < 0.0001) and were the most likely to bill in some manner (p < 0.0001). Those using telegenetic and telephone GC served patients who lived the furthest away, with 48.3 % and 35.8 %% respectively providing GC to patients who live >4 h away. This study shows that genetic counselors are incorporating SDMs other than traditional in-person genetic counseling, and are utilizing more than one model. These adaptations show a trend toward shorter wait time and shorter length of appointments. Further study is indicated to analyze benefits and limitations of each individual model and factors influencing the choice to adopt particular models into practice.

Inference of Germline Mutational Status and Evaluation of Loss of Heterozygosity in High-Depth, Tumor-Only Sequencing Data.

PURPOSE: Inherited germline defects are implicated in up to 10% of human tumors, with particularly well-known roles in breast and ovarian cancers that harbor BRCA1/2-mutated genes. There is also increasing evidence for the role of germline alterations in other malignancies such as colon and pancreatic cancers. Mutations in familial cancer genes can be detected by high throughput sequencing (HTS), when applied to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor specimens. However, due to often lack of patient-matched control normal DNA and/or low tumor purity, there is limited ability to determine the genomic status of these alterations (germline versus somatic) and to assess the presence of loss of heterozygosity (LOH). These analyses, especially when applied to genes such as BRCA1/2, can have significant clinical implications for patient care. METHODS: LOHGIC (LOH-Germline Inference Calculator) is a statistical model selection method to determine somatic-versus-germline status and predict LOH for mutations identified via clinical grade, high-depth, hybrid-capture tumor-only sequencing. LOHGIC incorporates statistical uncertainties inherent to HTS as well as specimen biases in tumor purity estimates, which we use to assess BRCA1/2 mutations in 1,636 specimens sequenced at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. RESULTS: Evaluation of LOHGIC with available germline sequencing from BRCA1/2 testing, demonstrates 93% accuracy, 100% precision, and 96% recall. This analysis highlights a differential tumor spectrum associated with BRCA1/2 mutations. CONCLUSION: LOHGIC can assess LOH status for both germline and somatic mutations. It also can be applied to any gene with candidate, inherited mutations. This approach demonstrates the clinical utility of targeted sequencing in both identifying patients with potential germline alterations in tumor suppressor genes as well as estimating LOH occurrence in cancer cells, which may confer therapeutic relevance.

Knowledge and attitudes about microsatellite instability testing among high-risk individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

For individuals meeting Bethesda criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome, the microsatellite instability (MSI) test is recommended as a screening evaluation before proceeding to genetic testing. The MSI test is new to the medical setting, but will be increasingly used to screen patients at high risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. The main goals of this study were to examine knowledge about and exposure to the MSI test among individuals considering the test, to evaluate perceived benefits and barriers to undergoing the MSI test, and to identify the demographic, medical, and psychosocial correlates of the perceived benefits and barriers to undergoing the test. One hundred and twenty-five patients completed a survey after being offered the test, but prior to making the decision whether to pursue MSI testing. Results indicated low levels of knowledge about and previous exposure to the MSI test. Participants held positive attitudes about the potential benefits of the test and perceived few barriers to undergoing the test. Motivations were similar to those cited by individuals considering other genetic tests. Participants with nonmetastatic disease, with lower perceived risk for cancer recurrence, and who reported more self-efficacy endorsed more benefits from the test. Higher levels of cancer-specific psychological distress were associated with more perceived barriers to having the test. These findings suggest that individuals considering the MSI test know very little about it but hold positive attitudes about the test's utility. More distressed patients, patients who perceive themselves at higher risk for cancer recurrence, and patients with metastatic disease might be less motivated to have the MSI test.

Age at diagnosis may trump family history in driving BRCA testing in a population of breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Standard BRCA genetic testing criteria include young age of diagnosis, family history, and Jewish ancestry. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of these criteria on BRCA test utilization in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Breast cancer patients aged 18 to 64 years living in Pennsylvania in 2007 completed a survey on family history of breast and ovarian cancer and BRCA testing (N = 2,213). Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate odds of BRCA testing by patient characteristics, and predicted probabilities of testing were calculated for several clinical scenarios. RESULTS: Young age at diagnosis (<50 years) was strongly associated with BRCA testing, with women diagnosed before age 50 years having nearly five times the odds of receiving BRCA testing compared to women diagnosed at age 50 or older (OR = 4.81; 95% CI, 3.85-6.00; P < 0.001). Despite a similar BRCA mutation prevalence estimate (8-10%), a young Jewish patient <50 years with no family history had markedly higher predicted probability of testing (63%) compared with an older, non-Jewish breast cancer patient with more than one first-degree relative (43%). CONCLUSION: Age at diagnosis, Jewish ancestry, and both maternal and paternal family history are strongly predictive of BRCA testing. However, among women diagnosed at age 50 or older, family history may be an underused criterion that may benefit from targeted intervention. IMPACT: Robust methods specific to ascertaining detailed family history, such as through electronic medical records, are needed to accurately identify patients for BRCA testing.

The evolution of personalized cancer genetic counseling in the era of personalized medicine.

Practice changes in cancer genetic counseling have occurred to meet the demand for cancer genetic services. As cancer genetics continues to impact not only prevention strategies but also treatment decisions, current cancer genetic counseling models will need to be tailored to accommodate emerging clinical indications. These clinical indications include: surgical prophylactic bilateral mastectomy candidates, PARP-inhibitor candidates, patients with abnormal tumor screening results for Lynch syndrome, and post-test counseling patients (after genetic testing is ordered by another healthcare provider). A more personalized, multidisciplinary approach to selecting the best framework, for a given clinical indication, may become increasingly necessary in this era of personalized medicine.

Delivery of Internet-based cancer genetic counselling services to patients' homes: a feasibility study.

We examined the feasibility of home videoconferencing for providing cancer genetic education and risk information to people at risk. Adults with possible hereditary colon or breast and ovarian cancer syndromes were offered Internet-based counselling. Participants were sent web cameras and software to install on their home PCs. They watched a prerecorded educational video and then took part in a live counselling session with a genetic counsellor. A total of 31 participants took part in Internet counselling sessions. Satisfaction with counselling was high in all domains studied, including technical (mean 4.3 on a 1-5 scale), education (mean 4.7), communication (mean 4.8), psychosocial (mean 4.1) and overall (mean 4.2). Qualitative data identified technical aspects that could be improved. All participants reported that they would recommend Internet-based counselling to others. Internet-based genetic counselling is feasible and associated with a high level of satisfaction among participants.

Facilitating informed decisions regarding microsatellite instability testing among high-risk individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of a CD-ROM intervention in the education of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome (LS) about microsatellite instability (MSI) and immunohisochemistry (IHC) testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred thirteen patients meeting Bethesda criteria were randomly assigned to receive either a brief educational session with a health educator (n = 105) or a brief educational session plus a CD-ROM (n = 108). Assessments were administered at baseline and 2 weeks post-treatment. Primary outcomes included MSI and IHC knowledge and level of satisfaction with and completeness of the preparation to make the decision for MSI testing. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict, difficulty making the decision, cancer-specific and global anxiety, and level of discussion about MSI testing with family and friends. RESULTS: Participants in the education plus CD-ROM condition reported significant increases in knowledge about the MSI and IHC tests, greater satisfaction with the preparation to make a decision for testing, lower decisional conflict, and greater decisional self-efficacy. The effects of the education plus CD-ROM on most outcomes were not moderated by preintervention levels of exposure to MSI testing, family support for MSI testing, or the family history of cancer. CONCLUSION: Incorporation of new media education strategies for individuals at risk for LS may be a valuable component of the informed consent process. As clinical criteria for MSI and IHC testing continue to expand, the need for alternative educational approaches to meet this increased demand could be met by the self-administered computer-based strategy that we described.

Cancer genetic risk assessment and referral patterns in primary care.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to describe cancer risk assessment practices among primary care providers (PCPs). METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to PCPs affiliated with a single insurance carrier. Demographic and practice characteristics associated with cancer genetic risk assessment and testing activities were described. Latent class analysis supported by likelihood ratio tests was used to define PCP profiles with respect to the level of engagement in genetic risk assessment and referral activity based on demographic and practice characteristics. RESULTS: 860 physicians responded to the survey (39% family practice, 29% internal medicine, 22% obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN), 10% other). Most respondents (83%) reported that they routinely assess hereditary cancer risk; however, only 33% reported that they take a full, three-generation pedigree for risk assessment. OB/GYN specialty, female gender, and physician access to a genetic counselor were independent predictors of referral to cancer genetics specialists. Three profiles of PCPs, based upon referral practice and extent of involvement in genetics evaluation, were defined. CONCLUSION: Profiles of physician characteristics associated with varying levels of engagement with cancer genetic risk assessment and testing can be identified. These profiles may ultimately be useful in targeting decision support tools and services.