Human-Centered Design Study to Inform Traceback Cascade Genetic Testing Programs at Three Integrated Health Systems.

INTRODUCTION: A traceback genetic testing program for ovarian cancer has the potential to identify individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and their relatives. Successful implementation depends on understanding and addressing the experiences, barriers, and preferences of the people served. METHODS: We conducted a remote, human-centered design research study of people with ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (probands) and people with a family history of ovarian cancer (relatives) at three integrated health systems between May and September 2021. Participants completed activities to elicit their preferences about ovarian cancer genetic testing messaging and to design their ideal experience receiving an invitation to participate in genetic testing. Interview data were analyzed using a rapid thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: We interviewed 70 participants and identified five preferred experiences for a traceback program. Participants strongly prefer discussing genetic testing with their doctor but are comfortable discussing with other clinicians. The most highly preferred experience for both probands and relatives was to discuss with a knowledgeable clinician who could answer questions, followed by directed (sent directly to specific people) or passive (shared in a public area) communication. Repeated contact was acceptable for reminders. CONCLUSION: Participants were open to receiving information about traceback genetic testing and recognized its value. Participants preferred discussing genetic testing with a trusted clinician. Directed communication was preferable to passive communication. Other valued information included how genetic tests help their family and the cost of genetic testing. These findings are informing traceback cascade genetic testing programs at all three sites.

Feasibility, acceptability, and limited efficacy of health system-led familial risk notification: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk can improve cancer outcomes through enhanced preventive care in both people with known variants and their biologic relatives. Cascade screening-the process of case-finding in relatives by notifying and inviting them to consider testing-currently relies on the patient to notify their own at-risk relatives. However, many of these relatives never learn they might be at risk. We developed and implemented a new health system-led familial genetic risk notification process where the care team offers to contact at-risk relatives directly. This protocol describes a study to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and limited efficacy of this intervention. METHODS: This feasibility study will use a single-arm, nonrandomized, mixed-methods prospective design. We will enroll two groups of participants: probands and relatives of probands. Eligible probands are currently enrolled Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) members with an upcoming appointment for pre-test genetic counseling for hereditary Lynch syndrome, breast, or ovarian cancer. Eligible relatives, who do not have to be KPWA members, are first-and second-degree relatives of probands. During the appointment with the proband, the genetic counselor will determine whether the proband is appropriate for genetic testing and if so, which relatives might benefit from cascade testing. The genetic counselor then will offer to contact any or all identified relatives directly to discuss genetic risk and testing. The primary outcome of this study is the feasibility of the implemented familial notification process, which we will measure using quantitative and qualitative data on intervention reach, intervention acceptability, and limited efficacy. Analyses will be primarily descriptive and exploratory, with the intent of preparing for a future, larger trial of direct contact interventions. DISCUSSION: Our findings will provide new, foundational evidence for the creation of US-based familial notification systems that directly address logistical and ethical challenges while prioritizing the preferences of patients and families.

Environmental scan of family chart linking for genetic cascade screening in a U.S. integrated health system.

Background: An alternative to population-based genetic testing, automated cascade genetic testing facilitated by sharing of family health history, has been conceptualized as a more efficient and cost-effective approach to identify hereditary genetic conditions. However, existing software and applications programming interfaces (API) for the practical implementation of this approach in health care settings have not been described. Methods: We reviewed API available for facilitating cascade genetic testing in electronic health records (EHRs). We emphasize any information regarding informed consent as provided for each tool. Using semi-structured key informant interviews, we investigated uptake of and barriers to integrating automated family cascade genetic testing into the EHR. Results: We summarized the functionalities of six tools related to utilizing family health history to facilitate cascade genetic testing. No tools were explicitly capable of facilitating family cascade genetic testing, but few enterprise EHRs supported family health history linkage. We conducted five key informant interviews with four main considerations that emerged including: 1) incentives for interoperability, 2) HIPAA and regulations, 3) mobile-app and alternatives to EHR deployment, 4) fundamental changes to conceptualizing EHRs. Discussion: Despite the capabilities of existing technology, limited bioinformatic support has been developed to automate processes needed for family cascade genetic testing and the main barriers for implementation are nontechnical, including an understanding of regulations, consent, and workflow. As the trade-off between cost and efficiency for population-based and family cascade genetic testing shifts, the additional tools necessary for their implementation should be considered.

Feasibility and Assessment of a Cascade Traceback Screening Program (FACTS): Protocol for a Multisite Study to Implement and Assess an Ovarian Cancer Traceback Cascade Testing Program.

Ovarian cancer (OVCA) patients may carry genes conferring cancer risk to biological family; however, fewer than one-quarter of patients receive genetic testing. "Traceback" cascade testing -outreach to potential probands and relatives-is a possible solution. This paper outlines a funded study (U01 CA240747-01A1) seeking to determine a Traceback program's feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and costs. This is a multisite prospective observational feasibility study across three integrated health systems. Informed by the Conceptual Model for Implementation Research, we will outline, implement, and evaluate the outcomes of an OVCA Traceback program. We will use standard legal research methodology to review genetic privacy statutes; engage key stakeholders in qualitative interviews to design communication strategies; employ descriptive statistics and regression analyses to evaluate the site differences in genetic testing and the OVCA Traceback testing; and assess program outcomes at the proband, family member, provider, system, and population levels. This study aims to determine a Traceback program's feasibility and acceptability in a real-world context. It will account for the myriad factors affecting implementation, including legal issues, organizational- and individual-level barriers and facilitators, communication issues, and program costs. Project results will inform how health care providers and systems can develop effective, practical, and sustainable Traceback programs.

Patient and Family Preferences on Health System-Led Direct Contact for Cascade Screening.

Health benefits to relatives of people at known genetic risk for hereditary cancer syndromes is key to realizing the promise of precision medicine. We conducted a qualitative study to design a patient- and family-centered program for direct contact of relatives to recommend cascade genetic testing. We conducted two rounds of data collection using focus groups followed by individual interviews with patients with HBOC or Lynch syndrome and a separate sample of people with a family history of hereditary cancers. Results indicate that U.S.-based health system-led direct contact of relatives is acceptable to patients and families, should take a programmatic approach, include consent of relatives before proband testing, complement to existing patient-mediated disclosure, and allow for relative control of information. Our findings suggest a set of requirements for U.S.-based direct contact programs that could ultimately benefit more relatives than current approaches.

Usefulness of mobile apps for communication of genetic test results to at-risk family members in a U.S. integrated health system: a qualitative approach from user-testing.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the usefulness a mobile based application to send genetic test results to at-risk family members in a U.S. integrated health system. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured in-person interviews with members of Kaiser Permanente Washington who had enrolled in a prospective study and received genetic test results. Participants were given the task to use the app and comment on the experience. The moderator asked participants to share perspectives on the usefulness of a mobile based app and their lived experiences of sharing their test results with family members. RESULTS: Fourteen study participants who had undergone genetic testing were interviewed. Four primary themes emerged as relevant to the use of mobile-based apps as a tool for communicating genetic test results to at-risk family members: (i) Participants felt a sense of obligation to share positive test results with relatives; (ii) Participants felt that the advantages of using email were similar to those of the app; (iii) Participants felt that younger individuals would be more comfortable with an app; and, (iv) Participants felt they could use the app independently and in their own time. CONCLUSION: A mobile based app could be used as a tool to improve cascade screening for pathogenic/likely pathogenic test results. The benefits of such a tool are likely greatest among relatives still at the stage of family planning, as well as among family members with strained relationships. There would be minimal burden on the system to offer a mobile based app as a tool.

Preferences of biobank participants for receiving actionable genomic test results: results of a recontacting study.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine preferences of biobank participants whose samples were tested for clinically actionable variants but did not respond to an initial invitation to receive results. METHODS: We recontacted a subsample of participants in the Kaiser Permanente Washington/University of Washington site of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network. The subsample had provided broad consent for their samples to be used for research but had not responded to one initial mailed invitation to receive their results. We sent a letter from the principal investigators with phone outreach. If no contact was made, we sent a certified letter stating our assumption that participant had actively refused. We collected reasons for declining. RESULTS: We recontacted 123 participants. Response rate was 70.7% (n = 87). Of these, 62 (71.3%) declined the offer of returned results and 25 (28.7%) consented. The most common reasons provided for refusal included not wanting to know (n = 22) and concerns about insurability (n = 28). CONCLUSION: Efforts to recontact biobank participants can yield high response. Though active refusal upon recontact was common, our data do not support assuming initial nonresponse to be refusal. Future research can work toward best practices for reconsenting, especially when clinically actionable results are possible.

Implementation matters: How patient experiences differ when genetic counseling accompanies the return of genetic variants of uncertain significance.

Precision medicine presents challenges for effective return of results (ROR) to patients, particularly for variants of uncertain significance (VUS) where the need for genetic counseling and the impact of results are underexplored. We investigated patients' experiences with VUS ROR. Through interviews we compared experiences of patients who were referred to genetic counseling with those not referred. Although participants from both groups (n=16) reported curious enthusiasm and relief after ROR, the 5 referred participants reported less confusion, less disappointment, and better confidence in understanding their results than the 11 non-referred participants. Although VUS did not impact healthcare or daily lives, some participants who shared VUS fostered communication about future healthcare. Suggested ROR improvements included patient-friendly terminology, on-demand education, and ongoing consultation. Although patient experience of VUS improved when ROR involved expert consultation, scarcity of genetic counselors presents challenges. Improving the ROR process with patient-centered solutions could enhance the patient experience of receiving VUS.

Understanding the Return of Genomic Sequencing Results Process: Content Review of Participant Summary Letters in the eMERGE Research Network.

A challenge in returning genomic test results to research participants is how best to communicate complex and clinically nuanced findings to participants in a manner that is scalable to the large numbers of participants enrolled. The purpose of this study was to examine the features of genetic results letters produced at each Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network site to assess their readability and content. Letters were collected from each site, and a qualitative analysis of letter content and a quantitative analysis of readability statistics were performed. Because letters were produced independently at each eMERGE site, significant heterogeneity in readability and content was found. The content of letters varied widely from a baseline of notifying participants that results existed to more detailed information about positive or negative results, as well as materials for sharing with family members. Most letters were significantly above the Centers for Disease Control-suggested reading level for health communication. While continued effort should be applied to make letters easier to understand, the ongoing challenge of explaining complex genomic information, the implications of negative test results, and the uncertainty that comes with some types of test and result makes simplifying letter text challenging.

Rates of Actionable Genetic Findings in Individuals with Colorectal Cancer or Polyps Ascertained from a Community Medical Setting.

As clinical testing for Mendelian causes of colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely driven by recognition of family history and early age of onset, the rates of such findings among individuals with prevalent CRC not recognized to have these features is largely unknown. We evaluated actionable genomic findings in community-based participants ascertained by three phenotypes: (1) CRC, (2) one or more adenomatous colon polyps, and (3) control participants over age 59 years without CRC or colon polyps. These participants underwent sequencing for a panel of genes that included colorectal cancer/polyp (CRC/P)-associated and actionable incidental findings genes. Those with CRC had a 3.8% rate of positive results (pathogenic or likely pathogenic) for a CRC-associated gene variant, despite generally being older at CRC onset (mean 72 years). Those ascertained for polyps had a 0.8% positive rate and those with no CRC/P had a positive rate of 0.2%. Though incidental finding rates unrelated to colon cancer were similar for all groups, our positive rate for cardiovascular findings exceeds disease prevalence, suggesting that variant interpretation challenges or low penetrance in these genes. The rate of HFE c.845G>A (p.Cys282Tyr) homozygotes in the CRC group reinforces a previously reported, but relatively unexplored, association between hemochromatosis and CRC. These results in a general clinical population suggest that current testing strategies could be improved in order to better detect Mendelian CRC-associated conditions. These data also underscore the need for additional functional and familial evidence to clarify the pathogenicity and penetrance of variants deemed pathogenic or likely pathogenic, particularly among the actionable genes associated with cardiovascular disease.

Workflow Requirements for Cost-of-Care Conversations in Outpatient Settings Providing Oncology or Primary Care: A Qualitative, Human-Centered Design Study.

Background: Patients prefer to discuss costs in the clinical setting, but physicians and teams may be unprepared to incorporate cost discussions into existing workflows. Objective: To understand and improve clinical workflows related to cost-of-care conversations. Design: Qualitative human-centered design study. Setting: 2 integrated health systems in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: a system-wide oncology service line and a system-wide primary care service line. Participants: Clinicians, clinical team members, operations staff, and patients. Measurements: Ethnographic observations were made at the integrated health systems, assessing barriers to and facilitators of discussing costs with patients. Three unique patient experiences of having financial concerns addressed in the clinic were designed. These experiences were refined after in-person interviews with patients (n = 20). Data were synthesized into a set of clinical workflow requirements. Results: Most patient cost concerns take 1 of 3 pathways: informing clinical care decision making, planning and budgeting concerns, and addressing immediate financial hardship. Workflow requirements include organizational recognition of the need for clinic-based cost-of-care conversations; access to cost and health plan benefit data to support each conversation pathway; clear team member roles and responsibilities for addressing cost-of-care concerns; a patient experience where cost questions are normal and each patient's preferences and privacy are respected; patients know who to go to with cost questions; patients' concerns are documented to minimize repetition to multiple team members; and patients learn their expected out-of-pocket costs before treatment begins. Limitation: Results may have limited generalizability to other health care settings, and the study did not test the effectiveness of the workflows developed. Conclusion: Clinic-based workflows for cost-of-care conversations that optimize patients' care experience require organizational commitment to addressing cost concerns, clear roles and responsibilities, appropriate and complete data access, and a team-based approach. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

"You Really Do Have to Know the Local Context": IRB Administrators and Researchers on the Implications of the NIH Single IRB Mandate for Multisite Genomic Studies.

In 2016, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a new policy requiring single institutional review board (sIRB) review for multisite studies. However, adherence to the new policy requires the separation of regulatory institutional review board (IRB) work per Federal guidance from site-specific local compliance concerns. In particular, genomic research is subject to a wide range of state laws, institutional requirements, and local population preferences. In this qualitative study, we explored the anticipated needs of genomics researchers and IRB administrators around implementing the policy. We observed multiple uncertainties, particularly about intersite communication processes, sIRB selection processes, and roles of the reviewing IRB and local sites regarding local context information relevant to genomics. Optimal implementation of the NIH policy may require additional guidance for researchers and IRB administrators.

A phenome-wide association study to discover pleiotropic effects of PCSK9, APOB, and LDLR.

We conducted an electronic health record (EHR)-based phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) to discover pleiotropic effects of variants in three lipoprotein metabolism genes PCSK9, APOB, and LDLR. Using high-density genotype data, we tested the associations of variants in the three genes with 1232 EHR-derived binary phecodes in 51,700 European-ancestry (EA) individuals and 585 phecodes in 10,276 African-ancestry (AA) individuals; 457 PCSK9, 730 APOB, and 720 LDLR variants were filtered by imputation quality (r 2 > 0.4), minor allele frequency (>1%), linkage disequilibrium (r 2 < 0.3), and association with LDL-C levels, yielding a set of two PCSK9, three APOB, and five LDLR variants in EA but no variants in AA. Cases and controls were defined for each phecode using the PheWAS package in R. Logistic regression assuming an additive genetic model was used with adjustment for age, sex, and the first two principal components. Significant associations were tested in additional cohorts from Vanderbilt University (n = 29,713), the Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project (n = 9562), and UK Biobank (n = 408,455). We identified one PCSK9, two APOB, and two LDLR variants significantly associated with an examined phecode. Only one of the variants was associated with a non-lipid disease phecode, ("myopia") but this association was not significant in the replication cohorts. In this large-scale PheWAS we did not find LDL-C-related variants in PCSK9, APOB, and LDLR to be associated with non-lipid-related phenotypes including diabetes, neurocognitive disorders, or cataracts.

Ethical Considerations Related to Return of Results from Genomic Medicine Projects: The eMERGE Network (Phase III) Experience.

We examined the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process at 9 academic institutions in the electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, for proposed electronic health record-based genomic medicine studies, to identify common questions and concerns. Sequencing of 109 disease related genes and genotyping of 14 actionable variants is being performed in ~28,100 participants from the 9 sites. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in actionable genes are being returned to study participants. We examined each site's research protocols, informed-consent materials, and interactions with IRB staff. Research staff at each site completed questionnaires regarding their IRB interactions. The time to prepare protocols for IRB submission, number of revisions and time to approval ranged from 10-261 days, 0-11, and 11-90 days, respectively. IRB recommendations related to the readability of informed consent materials, specifying the full range of potential risks, providing options for receiving limited results or withdrawal, sharing of information with family members, and establishing the mechanisms to answer participant questions. IRBs reviewing studies that involve the return of results from genomic sequencing have a diverse array of concerns, and anticipating these concerns can help investigators to more effectively engage IRBs.

Building a family network from genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing has multigenerational and familial repercussions. However, the "trickle-down effect" of providing genetic counseling and testing to family members at risk after an initial identification of a pathogenic variant in a medically actionable gene has been poorly understood. METHODS: Three probands were identified during the pharmacogenetics research phase of eMERGEII (electronic MEdical Record and Genomics, phase II) to have variants in genes associated with autosomal dominant adult-onset disorders determined to be actionable by the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG). Two of the three probands had variants that were classified as pathogenic and the third proband had a variant ultimately classified of uncertain significance, but of concern due to the proband's own phenotype. All probands had additional family members at risk for inheriting the variant. Two of the three probands had family members who received their medical care from the same health care system, Group Health Cooperative (GHC). It was recommended that the proband contact their family members at risk to be referred to genetic counseling for consideration of genetic testing. RESULTS: The two probands with pathogenic variants contacted some of their family members at risk. Individuals contacted included children and adult grandchildren, particularly if they received their medical care at GHC. To the best of our knowledge, siblings and more distant relatives at risk were not informed by the proband of their genetic risk. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing a family network is essential to disseminate knowledge of genetic risk. These three initial cases describe our experience of contacting eMERGE participants with identified variants, providing the probands with appropriate genetic counseling and care coordination, and recommendations for contacting family members at risk. Greater challenges were observed for coordinating genetics care for family members and extending the family network to include other relatives at risk.

Public Attitudes toward Consent and Data Sharing in Biobank Research: A Large Multi-site Experimental Survey in the US.

Individuals participating in biobanks and other large research projects are increasingly asked to provide broad consent for open-ended research use and widespread sharing of their biosamples and data. We assessed willingness to participate in a biobank using different consent and data sharing models, hypothesizing that willingness would be higher under more restrictive scenarios. Perceived benefits, concerns, and information needs were also assessed. In this experimental survey, individuals from 11 US healthcare systems in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network were randomly allocated to one of three hypothetical scenarios: tiered consent and controlled data sharing; broad consent and controlled data sharing; or broad consent and open data sharing. Of 82,328 eligible individuals, exactly 13,000 (15.8%) completed the survey. Overall, 66% (95% CI: 63%-69%) of population-weighted respondents stated they would be willing to participate in a biobank; willingness and attitudes did not differ between respondents in the three scenarios. Willingness to participate was associated with self-identified white race, higher educational attainment, lower religiosity, perceiving more research benefits, fewer concerns, and fewer information needs. Most (86%, CI: 84%-87%) participants would want to know what would happen if a researcher misused their health information; fewer (51%, CI: 47%-55%) would worry about their privacy. The concern that the use of broad consent and open data sharing could adversely affect participant recruitment is not supported by these findings. Addressing potential participants' concerns and information needs and building trust and relationships with communities may increase acceptance of broad consent and wide data sharing in biobank research.

Prospective participant selection and ranking to maximize actionable pharmacogenetic variants and discovery in the eMERGE Network.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to return actionable results from variant data to electronic health records (EHRs), participants in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are being sequenced with the targeted Pharmacogenomics Research Network sequence platform (PGRNseq). This cost-effective, highly-scalable, and highly-accurate platform was created to explore rare variation in 84 key pharmacogenetic genes with strong drug phenotype associations. METHODS: To return Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) results to our participants at the Group Health Cooperative, we sequenced the DNA of 900 participants (61 % female) with non-CLIA biobanked samples. We then selected 450 of those to be re-consented, to redraw blood, and ultimately to validate CLIA variants in anticipation of returning the results to the participant and EHR. These 450 were selected using an algorithm we designed to harness data from self-reported race, diagnosis and procedure codes, medical notes, laboratory results, and variant-level bioinformatics to ensure selection of an informative sample. We annotated the multi-sample variant call format by a combination of SeattleSeq and SnpEff tools, with additional custom variables including evidence from ClinVar, OMIM, HGMD, and prior clinical associations. RESULTS: We focused our analyses on 27 actionable genes, largely driven by the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium. We derived a ranking system based on the total number of coding variants per participant (75.2±14.7), and the number of coding variants with high or moderate impact (11.5±3.9). Notably, we identified 11 stop-gained (1 %) and 519 missense (20 %) variants out of a total of 1785 in these 27 genes. Finally, we prioritized variants to be returned to the EHR with prior clinical evidence of pathogenicity or annotated as stop-gain for the following genes: CACNA1S and RYR1 (malignant hyperthermia); SCN5A, KCNH2, and RYR2 (arrhythmia); and LDLR (high cholesterol). CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of genetics into the EHR for clinical decision support is a complex undertaking for many reasons including lack of prior consent for return of results, lack of biospecimens collected in a CLIA environment, and EHR integration. Our study design accounts for these hurdles and is an example of a pilot system that can be utilized before expanding to an entire health system.

Physician Communication Training and Parental Vaccine Hesitancy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physicians have a major influence on parental vaccine decisions. We tested a physician-targeted communication intervention designed to (1) reduce vaccine hesitancy in mothers of infants seen by trained physicians and (2) increase physician confidence in communicating about vaccines. METHODS: We conducted a community-based, clinic-level, 2-arm cluster randomized trial in Washington State. Intervention clinics received physician-targeted communications training. We enrolled mothers of healthy newborns from these clinics at the hospital of birth. Mothers and physicians were surveyed at baseline and 6 months. The primary outcome was maternal vaccine hesitancy measured by Parental Attitudes on Childhood Vaccines score; secondary outcome was physician self-efficacy in communicating with parents by using 3 vaccine communication domains. RESULTS: We enrolled 56 clinics and 347 mothers. We conducted intervention trainings at 30 clinics, reaching 67% of eligible physicians; 26 clinics were randomized to the control group. Maternal vaccine hesitancy at baseline and follow-up changed from 9.8% to 7.5% in the intervention group and 12.6% to 8.0% in the control group. At baseline, groups were similar on all variables except maternal race and ethnicity. The intervention had no detectable effect on maternal vaccine hesitancy (adjusted odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.47-2.68). At follow-up, physician self-efficacy in communicating with parents was not significantly different between intervention and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: This physician-targeted communication intervention did not reduce maternal vaccine hesitancy or improve physician self-efficacy. Research is needed to identify physician communication strategies effective at reducing parental vaccine hesitancy in the primary care setting.

Family history and the natural history of colorectal cancer: systematic review.

PURPOSE: Family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a known risk factor for CRC and encompasses both genetic and shared environmental risks. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to estimate the impact of family history on the natural history of CRC and adherence to screening. RESULTS: We found high heterogeneity in family-history definitions, the most common definition being one or more first-degree relatives. The prevalence of family history may be lower than the commonly cited 10%, and confirms evidence for increasing levels of risk associated with increasing family-history burden. There is evidence for higher prevalence of adenomas and of multiple adenomas in people with family history of CRC but no evidence for differential adenoma location or adenoma progression by family history. Limited data regarding the natural history of CRC by family history suggest a differential age or stage at cancer diagnosis and mixed evidence with respect to tumor location. Adherence to recommended colonoscopy screening was higher in people with a family history of CRC. CONCLUSION: Stratification based on polygenic and/or multifactorial risk assessment may mature to the point of displacing family history-based approaches, but for the foreseeable future, family history may remain a valuable clinical tool for identifying individuals at increased risk for CRC.