Feasibility Study and Clinical Impact of Incorporating Breast Tissue Density in High-Risk Breast Cancer Screening Assessment.

Breast tissue density (BTD) is known to increase the risk of breast cancer but is not routinely used in the risk assessment of the population-based High-Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program (HROBSP). This prospective, IRB-approved study assessed the feasibility and impact of incorporating breast tissue density (BTD) into the risk assessment of women referred to HROBSP who were not genetic mutation carriers. All consecutive women aged 40-69 years who met criteria for HROBSP assessment and referred to Genetics from 1 December 2020 to 31 July 2021 had their lifetime risk calculated with and without BTD using Tyrer-Cuzick model version 8 (IBISv8) to gauge overall impact. McNemar's test was performed to compare eligibility with and without density. 140 women were referred, and 1 was excluded (BRCA gene mutation carrier and automatically eligible). Eight of 139 (5.8%) never had a mammogram, while 17/131 (13%) did not have BTD reported on their mammogram and required radiologist review. Of 131 patients, 22 (16.8%) were clinically impacted by incorporation of BTD: 9/131 (6.9%) became eligible for HROBSP, while 13/131 (9.9%) became ineligible (p = 0.394). It was feasible for the Genetics clinic to incorporate BTD for better risk stratification of eligible women. This did not significantly impact the number of eligible women while optimizing the use of high-risk supplemental MRI screening.

Anticipating the primary care role in genomic medicine: expectations of genetics health professionals.

Our purpose was to explore genetics health professionals' (GHPs) expectations of primary care providers' (PCPs) role in genomic medicine now and in the future. Focus groups/interviews were conducted with GHPs in Ontario, Canada. Recordings were transcribed and analysed using qualitative descriptive analysis. Five focus groups (6 clinical geneticists, 24 genetic counselors, 1 nurse, 4 laboratory staff, 3 genetics program administrators) and 3 interviews (nurses) were conducted. GHPs described a key role for PCPs in genomic medicine that could be enhanced if GHPs and PCPs worked together more effectively, making better use of GHPs as a scarce specialist resource, improving PCP knowledge and awareness of genomics, and increasing GHPs' understanding of primary care practice and how to provide PCPs meaningful education and support. Health system change is needed to facilitate the GHP/PCP relationship and improve care. This might include: PCPs ordering more genetic tests independently or with GHP guidance prior to GHP consultations, genomic expertise in primary care clinics or GHPs being accessible through buddy systems or virtually through telemedicine or electronic consultation, and developing educational materials and electronic decision support for PCPs. Our findings highlight need for change in delivering genomic medicine, which requires building the relationship between GHPs and PCPs, and creating new service delivery models to meet future needs.

Informing Integration of Genomic Medicine Into Primary Care: An Assessment of Current Practice, Attitudes, and Desired Resources.

Introduction: Preparing primary care providers for genomic medicine (GM) first requires assessment of their educational needs in order to provide clear, purposeful direction and justify educational activities. More understanding is needed about primary care providers' perspectives on their role in newer areas of GM and what resources would be helpful in practice. Our objective was to determine family physicians' (FP) current involvement and confidence in GM, attitudes regarding its clinical value, suggestions for integration of GM into practice, and resources and education required. Methods: A self-complete anonymous questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 2,000 FPs in Ontario, Canada in September 2012. Results: Adjusted response rate was 26% (361/1,365), mean age was 51, and 53% were male. FPs reported many aspects of traditional GM as part of current practice (eliciting family history: 93%; deciding who to refer to genetics: 94%; but few reported confidence (44%, 32% respectively). Newer areas of GM were not part of most FPs' current practice and confidence was low (pharmacogenetics: 28% part of practice, 5% confident; direct-to-consumer genetic testing: 14%/2%; whole genome sequencing: 8%/2%). Attitudes were mixed with 59% agreeing that GM would improve patient health outcomes, 41% seeing benefits to genetic testing, but only 36% agreeing it was their responsibility to incorporate GM into practice. Few could identify useful sources of genetic information (22%) or find information about genetic tests (21%). Educational resources participants anticipated would be useful included contact information for local genetics clinics (89%), summaries of genetic disorders (86%), and genetic referral (85%) and testing (86%) criteria. About 58% were interested in learning about new genetic technologies. Most (76%) wanted to learn through in-person teaching (lectures, seminars etc.), 66% wanted contact with a local genetic counselor to answer questions, and 59% were interested in a genetics education website. Conclusion: FPs lack confidence in GM skills needed for practice, particularly in emerging areas of GM. They see their role as making appropriate referrals, are somewhat optimistic about the contribution GM may make to patient care, but express caution about its current clinical benefits. There is a need for evidence-based educational resources integrated into primary care and improved communication with genetic specialists.

Group genetic counseling: An alternate service delivery model in a high risk prenatal screening population.

OBJECTIVE: To address the growing demand for prenatal genetic services, group genetic counseling was explored as an alternative service delivery model for women with a positive prenatal screening result. METHOD: Women were recruited from a prenatal genetic service and systematically allocated to a traditional individual appointment with a genetic counselor or a group genetic counseling session. Questionnaires were administered to assess patient psychological outcomes, knowledge, and satisfaction following individual and group genetic counseling for a positive prenatal screen. Genetic counselor time per type of patient was measured. RESULTS: Of 172 participants, 107 (62.2%) received group genetic counseling and 65 (37.8%) received individual genetic counseling. Both group and individual genetic counseling encounters significantly decreased patient anxiety, increased perceived personal control, decreased decisional conflict, and increased knowledge. Satisfaction was high following both methods. Anxiety was significantly decreased in women who received individual genetic counseling compared with group sessions (P < .001). Genetic counselors spent less time per group patient seen compared with individual patients. CONCLUSION: Group genetic counseling followed by the option of brief individual genetic counseling appears acceptable to women in a high-risk prenatal screening population. The findings support an alternative service delivery model for prenatal genetic services that could optimize the utilization of genetic counseling resources.

Noninvasive Prenatal Detection of Trisomy 21 by Targeted Semiconductor Sequencing: A Technical Feasibility Study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an alternate noninvasive prenatal testing method for the assessment of trisomy 21 (T21) using a targeted semiconductor sequencing approach. METHODS: A customized AmpliSeq panel was designed with 1,067 primer pairs targeting specific regions on chromosomes 21, 18, 13, and others. A total of 235 samples, including 30 affected with T21, were sequenced with an Ion Torrent Proton sequencer, and a method was developed for assessing the probability of fetal aneuploidy via derivation of a risk score. RESULTS: Application of the derived risk score yields a bimodal distribution, with the affected samples clustering near 1.0 and the unaffected near 0. For a risk score cutoff of 0.345, above which all would be considered at "high risk," all 30 T21-positive pregnancies were correctly predicted to be affected, and 199 of the 205 non-T21 samples were correctly predicted. The average hands-on time spent on library preparation and sequencing was 19 h in total, and the average number of reads of sequence obtained was 3.75 million per sample. CONCLUSION: With the described targeted sequencing approach on the semiconductor platform using a custom-designed library and a probabilistic statistical approach, we have demonstrated the feasibility of an alternate method of assessment for fetal T21.