Longitudinal adherence to breast cancer surveillance following cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.

PURPOSE: Screening with mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important risk management strategy for individuals with inherited pathogenic variants (PVs) in genes associated with increased breast cancer risk. We describe longitudinal screening adherence in individuals who underwent cancer genetic testing as part of usual care in a vertically integrated health system. METHODS: We determined the proportion time covered (PTC) by annual mammography and breast MRI for individuals with PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, and ATM. We determined time covered by biennial mammography beginning at age 50 years for individuals who received negative results, uncertain results, or with PVs in genes without specific breast cancer screening recommendations. RESULTS: One hundred and forty individuals had PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, or ATM. Among these individuals, average PTC was 48% (range 0-99%) for annual screening mammography and 34% (range 0-100%) for annual breast MRI. Average PTC was highest for individuals with PVs in CHEK2 (N = 14) and lowest for individuals with PVs in TP53 (N = 3). Average PTC for biennial mammography (N = 1,027) was 49% (0-100%). CONCLUSION: Longitudinal screening adherence in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes, as measured by the proportion of time covered, is low; adherence to annual breast MRI falls below that of annual mammography. Additional research should examine screening behavior in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes with a goal of developing interventions to improve adherence to recommended risk management.

Risk-reducing surgery in unaffected individuals receiving cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing enables primary cancer prevention, including through prophylactic surgery. We examined risk-reducing surgeries in unaffected individuals tested for hereditary cancer susceptibly between 2010 and 2018 in the Kaiser Permanente Northwest health system. METHODS: We used an internal genetic testing database to create a cohort of individuals who received tests including one or more high-penetrance hereditary cancer susceptibility gene. We then identified, after testing, bilateral mastectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), and total hysterectomy procedures in electronic health record and claims data through 2019. We describe surgery utilization by genetic test results and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. RESULTS: The cohort included 1020 individuals, 16% with pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in one or more of the following genes: BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, APC, MUTYH, ATM, MSH2, PALB2, BRIP1, MLH1, MSH6, EPCAM, FLCN, RAD51C, RAD51D, or TP53. Among individuals with P/LP variants making them candidates for mastectomy, BSO, or hysterectomy per NCCN guidelines, 34% (33/97), 24% (23/94), and 8% (1/12), respectively, underwent surgery during follow-up. Fifty-three percent (18/37) of hysterectomies were among APC, BRCA1, and BRCA2 P/LP variant heterozygotes, typically concurrent with BSO. Three individuals with variants of uncertain significance (only) and 22 with negative results had prophylactic surgery after genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of risk-reducing surgery following usual care genetic testing appears to be lower than in studies that actively recruit high-risk patients and provide testing and follow-up care in specialized settings. Factors in addition to genetic test results and NCCN guidelines motivate prophylactic surgery use and deserve further study.

Identifying patients with Lynch syndrome using a universal tumor screening program in an integrated healthcare system.

INTRODUCTION: Lynch syndrome (LS) is associated with an increased risk of colorectal (CRC) and endometrial (EC) cancers. Universal tumor screening (UTS) of all individuals diagnosed with CRC and EC is recommended to increase identification of LS. Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) implemented a UTS program for LS among individuals newly diagnosed with CRC in January 2016 and EC in November 2016. UTS at KPNW begins with immunohistochemistry (IHC) of tumor tissue to determine loss of mismatch repair proteins associated with LS (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2)., IHC showing loss of MLH1 is followed by reflex testing (automatic testing) to detect the presence of the BRAF V600E variant (in cases of CRC) and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation to rule out likely sporadic cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals newly diagnosed with CRC and EC were identified between the initiation of the respective UTS programs and July 2018. Electronic medical records were reviewed to extract patient data related to UTS, including IHC and reflex testing results, date of referrals to the genetics department, and results of germline genetic testing for LS. RESULTS: 313 out of 362 individuals diagnosed with CRC and 61 out of 64 individuals diagnosed with EC who were eligible were screened by IHC for LS. Most (47/52 or 90%, including 46/49 CRC and 1/3 EC) individuals that were not screened by IHC only had a biopsy sample available. Fourteen individuals (3.7% overall, including 13/313 CRC and 1/61 EC) received an abnormal result after reflex testing and were referred for genetic counseling. Of these, 10 individuals (71% overall, including 9/13 CRC and 1/1 EC) underwent germline genetic testing for LS. Five individuals diagnosed with CRC were found to have pathogenic variants. in PMS2 (n = 3), MLH1 (n = 1), and MSH6 (n = 1). No pathogenic variants were identified in individuals diagnosed with EC. CONCLUSIONS: UTS identified individuals at risk for LS. Most individuals who screened positive for LS had follow-up germline genetic testing for LS. The consistent use of biopsy samples is an opportunity to improve UTS.

Developing an algorithm across integrated healthcare systems to identify a history of cancer using electronic medical records.

OBJECTIVE: Tumor registries in integrated healthcare systems (IHCS) have high precision for identifying incident cancer but often miss recently diagnosed cancers or those diagnosed outside of the IHCS. We developed an algorithm using the electronic medical record (EMR) to identify people with a history of cancer not captured in the tumor registry to identify adults, aged 40-65 years, with no history of cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The algorithm was developed at Kaiser Permanente Colorado, and then applied to 7 other IHCS. We included tumor registry data, diagnosis and procedure codes, chemotherapy files, oncology encounters, and revenue data to develop the algorithm. Each IHCS adapted the algorithm to their EMR data and calculated sensitivity and specificity to evaluate the algorithm's performance after iterative chart review. RESULTS: We included data from over 1.26 million eligible people across 8 IHCS; 55 601 (4.4%) were in a tumor registry, and 44848 (3.5%) had a reported cancer not captured in a registry. The common attributes of the final algorithm at each site were diagnosis and procedure codes. The sensitivity of the algorithm at each IHCS was 90.65%-100%, and the specificity was 87.91%-100%. DISCUSSION: Relying only on tumor registry data would miss nearly half of the identified cancers. Our algorithm was robust and required only minor modifications to adapt to other EMR systems. CONCLUSION: This algorithm can identify cancer cases regardless of when the diagnosis occurred and may be useful for a variety of research applications or quality improvement projects around cancer care.

Retrospective assessment of barriers and access to genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes in an integrated health care delivery system.

BACKGROUND: A critical step in access to genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes is referral for genetic counseling to assess personal and family risk. Individuals meeting testing guidelines have the greatest need to be evaluated. However, referrals to genetics are underutilized in US patients with hereditary cancer syndromes, especially within traditionally underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income, and non-English speaking patients. METHODS: We studied existing processes for referral to genetic evaluation and testing for hereditary cancer risk to identify areas of potential improvement in delivering these services, especially for traditionally underserved patients. We conducted a retrospective review of 820 referrals to the Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) genetics department containing diagnosis codes for hereditary cancer risk. We classified referrals as high- or low-quality based on whether sufficient information was provided to determine if patients met national practice guidelines for testing. Through chart abstraction, we also assessed consistency with practice guidelines, whether the referral resulted in a visit to the genetics department for evaluation, and clinical characteristics of patients receiving genetic testing. RESULTS: Most referrals (n = 514, 63%) contained sufficient information to assess the appropriateness of referral; of those, 92% met practice guidelines for genetic testing. Half of referred patients (50%) were not offered genetic evaluation; only 31% received genetic testing. We identified several barriers to receiving genetic evaluation and testing, the biggest barrier being completion of a family history form sent to patients following the referral. Those with a referral consistent with testing guidelines, were more likely to receive genetic testing than those without (39% vs. 29%, respectively; p = 0.0058). Traditionally underserved patients were underrepresented in those receiving genetic evaluation and testing relative to the overall adult KPNW population. CONCLUSIONS: Process improvements are needed to increase access to genetic services to diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes prior to development of cancer.

Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM): A clinical trial assessing a multimodal cancer genetics services delivery program and its impact on diverse populations.

Advances in the application of genomic technologies in clinical care have the potential to increase existing healthcare disparities. Studies have consistently shown that only a fraction of eligible patients with a family history of cancer receive recommended cancer genetic counseling and subsequent genetic testing. Care delivery models using pre-test and post-test counseling are not scalable, which contributes to barriers in accessing genetics services. These barriers are even more pronounced for patients in historically underserved populations. We have designed a multimodal intervention to improve subsequent cancer surveillance, by improving the identification of patients at risk for familial cancer syndromes, reducing barriers to genetic counseling/testing, and increasing patient understanding of complex genetic results. We are evaluating this intervention in two large, integrated healthcare systems that serve diverse patient populations (NCT03426878). The primary outcome is the number of diagnostic (hereditary cancer syndrome) findings. We are examining the clinical and personal utility of streamlined pathways to genetic testing using electronic medical record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews. We will assess downstream care utilization of individuals receiving usual clinical care vs. genetic testing through the study. We will evaluate the impacts of a literacy-focused genetic counseling approach versus usual care genetic counseling on care utilization and participant understanding, satisfaction, and family communication. By recruiting participants belonging to historically underserved populations, this study is uniquely positioned to evaluate the potential of a novel genetics care delivery program to reduce care disparities.

The Genomic Medicine Integrative Research Framework: A Conceptual Framework for Conducting Genomic Medicine Research.

Conceptual frameworks are useful in research because they can highlight priority research domains, inform decisions about interventions, identify outcomes and factors to measure, and display how factors might relate to each other to generate and test hypotheses. Discovery, translational, and implementation research are all critical to the overall mission of genomic medicine and prevention, but they have yet to be organized into a unified conceptual framework. To fill this gap, our diverse team collaborated to develop the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research (GMIR) Framework, a simple but comprehensive tool to aid the genomics community in developing research questions, strategies, and measures and in integrating genomic medicine and prevention into clinical practice. Here we present the GMIR Framework and its development, along with examples of its use for research development, demonstrating how we applied it to select and harmonize measures for use across diverse genomic medicine implementation projects. Researchers can utilize the GMIR Framework for their own research, collaborative investigations, and clinical implementation efforts; clinicians can use it to establish and evaluate programs; and all stakeholders can use it to help allocate resources and make sure that the full complexity of etiology is included in research and program design, development, and evaluation.

Implementation of a Systematic Tumor Screening Program for Lynch Syndrome in an Integrated Health Care Setting.

A subset of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are attributable to Lynch syndrome (LS), a hereditary form of CRC. Effective evaluation for LS can be done on CRC tumors to guide diagnostic testing. Increased diagnosis of LS allows for surveillance and risk reduction, which can mitigate CRC-related burden and prevent cancer-related deaths. We evaluated participation in LS screening among newly diagnosed adult CRC patients. Some cases were referred for genetics evaluation prior to study recruitment (selective screening). Those not referred directly were randomized to the intervention or control (usual care) arms. Control cases were observed for one year, then given information about LS screening. Patients who declined participation were followed through the medical record. Of 601 cases of CRC, 194 (32%) enrolled in our study and were offered LS screening, 43 (7%) were followed as a control group, 148 (25%) declined participation and 216 (36%) were ineligible [63 (10%) of which received prior selective screening]. Six and nine cases of LS were identified through the intervention and selective screening groups, respectively. Overall, a higher proportion of PMS2 variants were identified in the intervention (3/6, 50%) versus selective screening groups (2/9, 22%) (not statistically significant). Eighty-eight percent and 23% of intervention and control patients, respectively, received LS screening. No control patients were found to have LS. Systems-based approaches are needed to ensure we fully identify LS cases. The proportion of LS cases from this program was 4% of newly diagnosed cases of CRC, similar to other programs.

Recommended care and care adherence following a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome. This study assesses trends in diagnosis of LS and adherence to recommended LS-related care in a large integrated healthcare organization (~ 575,000 members). METHODS: Electronic medical record (EMR) data (1999-2015) were examined to identify patients with a diagnosis of LS. We examined their LS-associated care recommendations and adherence to these recommendations. Qualitative patient and provider interviews were conducted with the aim of identifying opportunities for improved care delivery. RESULTS: We identified 74 patients with a diagnosis of LS; 64% were diagnosed with a LS-related malignancy prior to their diagnosis of LS. The time to LS diagnosis following development of a LS-related cancer decreased over time: before 2009 11% of individuals received a diagnosis of LS within 1 year of developing a LS-related cancer compared to 83% after 2009 (p < 0.0001). Colonoscopy recommendations were documented in the EMR for almost all patients with LS (96%). Documentation of other recommendations for cancer surveillance was less commonly found. Overall, patient adherence to colonoscopy was high (M = 81.5%; SD = 32.7%), and adherence to other recommendations varied. To improve care coordination, patients and providers suggested providing automated reminder prompts for LS-related surveillance, adding a LS-specific diagnosis code, and providing guidelines for LS-related surveillance in the EMR. CONCLUSIONS: We identified fewer than expected patients with LS in our large care system, indicating that there is still a diagnostic care gap. However, patients with LS were likely to receive and follow CRC surveillance recommendations. Recommendations for and adherence to extracolonic surveillance were variable. Improved care coordination and clearer documentation of the LS diagnosis is needed.

Patient and provider perspectives on adherence to and care coordination of lynch syndrome surveillance recommendations: findings from qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a genetic variant associated with Lynch syndrome (LS) are recommended to undergo frequent and repeated cancer surveillance activities to minimize cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Little is known about how patients and primary care providers (PCPs) track and manage these recommendations. We conducted a small exploratory study of patient and PCP experiences with recommended LS surveillance activities and communication with family members in an integrated health care system. METHODS: We used in-depth interviews with patients and providers to understand how surveillance is coordinated and monitored following confirmation of LS. We recruited patients with a range of ages/gender, and providers with at least at least one patient with a molecular diagnosis of LS. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed by a trained qualitative methodologist. RESULTS: Twenty-two interviews were completed with 12 patients and 10 providers. Most patients (10) had detailed knowledge of surveillance recommendations, but were less sure of time intervals. While all patients reported receiving initial education about their surveillance recommendations from a genetic counselor, seven did not follow-up with a genetic counselor in subsequent years. A third of patients described taking sole responsibility for managing their LS surveillance care. Lack of routine communication from the health system (e.g., prompts for surveillance activities), and provider engagement were surveillance barriers. PCPs were generally aware of LS, but had limited familiarity with surveillance recommendations. Most PCPs (7) viewed LS as rare and relied on patient and specialist expertise and support. Providers typically had 1 patient with LS in a panel of 1800 patients overall. Providers felt strongly that management of LS should be coordinated by a dedicated team of specialists. Most patients (92%) had at least one family member that sought LS testing, and common barriers for family members included lack of insurance, affordability, and fear of result. CONCLUSION: The maximal benefits of screening for confirmation of LS will only be realized with adherence to recommended preventive care. Important factors to ensure patients receive recommended LS care include a comprehensive and coordinated monitoring program that includes reminder prompts, and increased PCP education of LS and associated surveillance recommendations.

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing a universal Lynch syndrome screening program: a qualitative study of early barriers and facilitators.

PURPOSE: Evidence-based guidelines recommend that all newly diagnosed colon cancer be screened for Lynch syndrome (LS), but best practices for implementing universal tumor screening have not been extensively studied. We interviewed a range of stakeholders in an integrated health-care system to identify initial factors that might promote or hinder the successful implementation of a universal LS screening program. METHODS: We conducted interviews with health-plan leaders, managers, and staff. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis began with a grounded approach and was also guided by the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM). RESULTS: We completed 14 interviews with leaders/managers and staff representing involved clinical and health-plan departments. Although stakeholders supported the concept of universal screening, they identified several internal (organizational) and external (environment) factors that promote or hinder implementation. Facilitating factors included perceived benefits of screening for patients and organization, collaboration between departments, and availability of organizational resources. Barriers were also identified, including: lack of awareness of guidelines, lack of guideline clarity, staffing and program "ownership" concerns, and cost uncertainties. Analysis also revealed nine important infrastructure-type considerations for successful implementation. CONCLUSION: We found that clinical, laboratory, and administrative departments supported universal tumor screening for LS. Requirements for successful implementation may include interdepartmental collaboration and communication, patient and provider/staff education, and significant infrastructure and resource support related to laboratory processing and systems for electronic ordering and tracking.

Underutilization of Lynch syndrome screening in a multisite study of patients with colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine Lynch syndrome screening of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in integrated health-care-delivery organizations. METHODS: We determined the availability of Lynch syndrome screening criteria and actual Lynch syndrome screening in the medical records of 1,188 patients diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2009 at seven institutions in the Cancer Research Network. RESULTS: We found infrequent use of Lynch syndrome screening (41/1,188). Family history was available for 937 of the 1,188 patients (79%). There was sufficient information to assess Lynch syndrome risk using family history-based criteria in 719 of the 937 patients (77%) with family history documentation. In 391 individuals with a family history of a Lynch syndrome-associated cancer, 107 (27%) could not be evaluated due to missing information such as age of cancer onset. Eleven percent of patients who met the Bethesda criteria and 25% of individuals who met the Amsterdam II criteria were screened for Lynch syndrome. Recommended guidelines were adhered to during screening, but no testing method was preferred. CONCLUSION: The information required for Lynch syndrome screening decisions is routinely collected but seldom used. There is a critical gap between collection of family history and its use to guide Lynch syndrome screening, which may support a case for implementation of universal screening guidelines.

KRAS testing and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor treatment for colorectal cancer in community settings.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), mutations in the KRAS gene predict poor response to EGF receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. Clinical treatment guidelines now recommend KRAS testing if EGFR inhibitors are considered. Our study investigates the clinical uptake and utilization of KRAS testing. METHODS: We included 1,188 patients with mCRCs diagnosed from 2004 to 2009, from seven integrated health care delivery systems with a combined membership of 5.5 million. We used electronic medical records and targeted manual chart review to capture the complexity and breadth of real-world clinical oncology care. RESULTS: Overall, 428 patients (36%) received KRAS testing during their clinical care, and 266 (22%) were treated with EGFR inhibitors. Age at diagnosis (P = 0.0034), comorbid conditions (P = 0.0316), and survival time from diagnosis (P < 0.0001) influence KRAS testing and EGFR inhibitor prescribing. The proportion who received KRAS testing increased from 7% to 97% for those treated in 2006 and 2010, respectively, and 83% of all treated patients had a KRAS wild-type genotype. Most patients with a KRAS mutation (86%) were not treated with EGFR inhibitors. The interval between mCRC diagnosis and receipt of KRAS testing decreased from 26 months (2006) to 10 months (2009). CONCLUSIONS: These findings show rapid uptake and incorporation of this predictive biomarker into clinical oncology care. IMPACT: In this delivery setting, KRAS testing is widely used to guide treatment decisions with EGFR inhibitors in patients with mCRCs. An important future research goal is to evaluate utilization of KRAS testing in other delivery settings in the United States.

Utilization of HER2 genetic testing in a multi-institutional observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression is amplified in about 20% of breast cancer tumors, and evaluation of HER2 status should influence therapy selection. A critical gap in our knowledge is the real-world implementation of HER2 testing and its impact on treatment decisions for women diagnosed with breast cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess use of HER2 testing, to describe characteristics of patients who do or do not receive HER2 testing, to describe which HER2 tests were used (fluorescence in situ hybridization or immunohistochemistry), and to evaluate trastuzumab use as a function of HER2 results. STUDY DESIGN: The population included 6460 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1999 and 2007 at 8 geographically distributed Cancer Research Network healthcare delivery systems in the United States. METHODS: Electronic records were used to identify patient and tumor characteristics and treatment with trastuzumab. Chart abstraction was performed for 400 women (50 per site) to identify receipt of HER2 testing and results. RESULTS: More than 90% of study participants received HER2 testing. Everyone who received trastuzumab had a HER2 test, and nearly all (>95%) who received trastuzumab had a positive HER2 test result recorded in their medical chart. Most (77%) eligible patients with a positive HER2 test result diagnosed after 2005 received trastuzumab. This study expands upon previous work in individual health plans. CONCLUSIONS: HER2 status has been successfully incorporated into medical practice to guide treatment decisions for breast cancer patients in diverse integrated healthcare delivery settings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for KRAS and BRAF mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommended that patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are candidates for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy have their tumors tested for KRAS mutations because tumors with such mutations do not respond to anti-EGFR therapy. Limiting anti-EGFR therapy to those without KRAS mutations will reserve treatment for those likely to benefit while avoiding unnecessary costs and harm to those who would not. Similarly, tumors with BRAF genetic mutations may not respond to anti-EGFR therapy, though this is less clear. Economic analyses of mutation testing have not fully explored the roles of alternative therapies and resection of metastases. METHODS: This paper is based on a decision analytic framework that forms the basis of a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for KRAS and BRAF mutations in mCRC in the context of treatment with cetuximab. A cohort of 50 000 patients with mCRC is simulated 10 000 times, with attributes randomly assigned on the basis of distributions from randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Screening for both KRAS and BRAF mutations compared with the base strategy (of no anti-EGFR therapy) increases expected overall survival by 0.034 years at a cost of $22 033, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $650 000 per additional year of life. Compared with anti-EGFR therapy without screening, adding KRAS testing saves approximately $7500 per patient; adding BRAF testing saves another $1023, with little reduction in expected survival. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for KRAS and BFAF mutation improves the cost-effectiveness of anti-EGFR therapy, but the incremental cost effectiveness ratio remains above the generally accepted threshold for acceptable cost effectiveness ratio of $100 000/quality adjusted life year.

Barriers in identification and referral to genetic counseling for familial cancer risk: the perspective of genetic service providers.

The purpose of this study was to obtain genetic counselors' perspectives about the identification of appropriate patients and barriers to referral of high-risk patients for cancer genetic counseling services. Genetic service providers from eight integrated health systems were surveyed. Data analysis included descriptive statistics. Twenty-eight of 40 potential participants responded (70%). Referrals for familial cancer risk assessment overwhelmingly came from providers (89%); only 10% were self-referrals. Use of guidelines to assist providers with referral was reported by 46% of the respondents. Genetic service providers perceived patient barriers to seeking genetic counseling after referral included: risk evaluation viewed as a non-priority (72%), concerns about impact on insurability (52%), distance to appointments (48%), lack of insurance (44%), lack of patient/provider knowledge about the value of genetic counseling (36%), discouragement by family members (28%), and fear (20%). The best approaches suggested by respondents to increase appropriate referrals were attending meetings and giving presentations to oncologists, surgeons, primary care and gynecologists. The genetic service providers reported several barriers to the referral and use of genetic counseling. This finding is consistent with current literature from the providers' perspective. Our survey adds the genetic service providers' perspective and identifies areas of opportunity for further research and intervention as few of the perceived barriers are being addressed through current educational efforts.