Exploring Stakeholders' Perspectives on Implementing Universal Germline Testing for Colorectal Cancer: Findings From a Clinical Practice Survey.

PURPOSE: New guidelines recommend considering germline genetic testing for all patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there is a lack of data on stakeholders' perspectives on the advantages and barriers of implementing universal germline testing (UGT). This study assessed the perspectives of members of the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer (CGA-IGC) regarding the implementation of UGT for patients with CRC, including readiness, logistics, and barriers. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was sent to 317 active members of CGA-IGC. The survey included sections on demographics, clinical practice specialty, established institutional practices for testing, and questions pertaining to support of and barriers to implementing UGT for patients with CRC. RESULTS: Eighty CGA-IGC members (25%) participated, including 42 genetic counselors (53%) and 14 gastroenterologists (18%). Forty-seven (59%) reported an academic medical center as their primary work setting, and most participants (56%) had more than 10 years of clinical practice. Although most participants (73%) supported UGT, 54% indicated that changes in practice would be required before adopting UGT, and 39% indicated that these changes would be challenging to implement. There was support for both genetics and nongenetics providers to order genetic testing, and a majority (57%) supported a standardized multigene panel rather than a customized gene panel. Key barriers to UGT implementation included limited genetics knowledge among nongenetics providers, time-consuming processes for obtaining consent, ordering tests, disclosing results, and lack of insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates wide support among hereditary GI cancer experts for implementation of UGT for patients with CRC. However, alternative service delivery models using nongenetics providers should be considered to address the logistical barriers to UGT implementation, particularly the growing demand for genetic testing.

How regional versus global thresholds for physical activity and grip strength influence physical frailty prevalence and mortality estimates in PURE: a prospective multinational cohort study of community-dwelling adults.

OBJECTIVES: Handgrip strength and physical activity are commonly used to evaluate physical frailty; however, their distribution varies worldwide. The thresholds that identify frail individuals have been established in high-income countries but not in low-income and middle-income countries. We created two adaptations of physical frailty to study how global versus regional thresholds for handgrip strength and physical activity affect frailty prevalence and its association with mortality in a multinational population. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Our sample included 137 499 adults aged 35-70 years (median age: 61 years, 60% women) from Population Urban Rural Epidemiology Studies community-dwelling prospective cohort across 25 countries, covering the following geographical regions: China, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa, Russia and Central Asia, North America/Europe, Middle East and South America. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured and compared frailty prevalence and time to all-cause mortality for two adaptations of frailty. RESULTS: Overall frailty prevalence was 5.6% using global frailty and 5.8% using regional frailty. Global frailty prevalence ranged from 2.4% (North America/Europe) to 20.1% (Africa), while regional frailty ranged from 4.1% (Russia/Central Asia) to 8.8% (Middle East). The HRs for all-cause mortality (median follow-up of 9 years) were 2.42 (95% CI: 2.25 to 2.60) and 1.91 (95% CI: 1.77 to 2.06) using global frailty and regional frailty, respectively, (adjusted for age, sex, education, smoking status, alcohol consumption and morbidity count). Receiver operating characteristic curves for all-cause mortality were generated for both frailty adaptations. Global frailty yielded an area under the curve of 0.600 (95% CI: 0.594 to 0.606), compared with 0.5933 (95% CI: 0.587 to 5.99) for regional frailty (p=0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: Global frailty leads to higher regional variations in estimated frailty prevalence and stronger associations with mortality, as compared with regional frailty. However, both frailty adaptations in isolation are limited in their ability to discriminate between those who will die during 9 years' follow-up from those who do not.