Cost-effectiveness of BRCA1 testing at time of obstetrical prenatal carrier screening for cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND: Improved technologies paired with an increase in access to genetic testing have led to the availability of expanded carrier screening evaluating hundreds of disorders. Currently, most autosomal dominant mutations, such as BRCA1, are not included in expanded carrier assays. Screening pregnant or preconception reproductive-aged women for BRCA1 may present a unique opportunity to perform population-based screening for patients at a time when precancer screening, chemoprevention, and/or risk-reducing surgery may be beneficial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to inform clinical decision-making as to whether the universal incorporation of BRCA1 testing at the time of obstetrical prenatal carrier screening is cost-effective. STUDY DESIGN: A decision analysis and Markov model was created. The initial decision point in the model was BRCA1 testing at the time of expanded carrier screening. Model probabilities, cost, and utility values were derived from published literature. For BRCA1-positive patients, the model simulated breast cancer screening and risk-reducing surgical interventions. A cycle length of 1 year and a time horizon of 47 years were used to simulate the lifespan of patients. The setting was obstetrical clinics in the United States, and the participants were a theoretical cohort of 1,429,074 pregnant patients who annually underwent expanded carrier screening. RESULTS: Among our cohort, BRCA1 testing resulted in the identification of an additional 3716 BRCA1-positive patients, the prevention of 1394 breast and ovarian cancer cases, and 1084 fewer deaths. BRCA1 testing was a cost-effective strategy compared with no BRCA1 testing with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,001 per quality-adjusted life years. In a 1-way sensitivity analysis, we varied the prevalence of BRCA1 in the population from 0.00% to 20.00% and found that BRCA1 testing continued to be the cost-effective strategy until the prevalence rate was reduced to 0.16%. Multiple additional sensitivity analyses did not substantially affect the cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The addition of BRCA1 testing to obstetrical prenatal carrier screening is a cost-effective management strategy to identify at-risk women at a time when cancer screening and preventive strategies can be effective. Despite the burden of additional genetic counseling, prenatal care represents a unique opportunity to implement population-based genetic testing.

Benchmarking multi-ancestry prostate cancer polygenic risk scores in a real-world cohort.

Prostate cancer is a heritable disease with ancestry-biased incidence and mortality. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) offer promising advancements in predicting disease risk, including prostate cancer. While their accuracy continues to improve, research aimed at enhancing their effectiveness within African and Asian populations remains key for equitable use. Recent algorithmic developments for PRS derivation have resulted in improved pan-ancestral risk prediction for several diseases. In this study, we benchmark the predictive power of six widely used PRS derivation algorithms, including four of which adjust for ancestry, against prostate cancer cases and controls from the UK Biobank and All of Us cohorts. We find modest improvement in discriminatory ability when compared with a simple method that prioritizes variants, clumping, and published polygenic risk scores. Our findings underscore the importance of improving upon risk prediction algorithms and the sampling of diverse cohorts.

Personalized survivorship care: Routine breast cancer risk assessment in the gynecologic oncology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Gynecologic and breast cancers share several risk factors. Breast cancer risk assessment tools can identify those at elevated risk and allow for enhanced breast surveillance and chemoprevention, however such tools are underutilized. We aim to evaluate the use of routine breast cancer risk assessment in a gynecologic oncology clinic. METHODS: A patient-facing web-based tool was used to collect personal and family history and run four validated breast cancer risk assessment models (Tyrer-Cuzick (TC), Gail, BRCAPRO, and Claus) in a gynecologic oncology clinic. We evaluated completion of the tools and identification of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer using the four validated models. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients were included in this analysis. The BRCAPRO model had the highest completion rate (84.8%), followed by the TC model (74.7%), Gail model (74.7%), and the Claus model (52.1%). The TC model identified 21.6% of patients completing the model as having ≥20% lifetime risk of breast cancer, compared to 6.8% by the Gail model, and 0% for both the BRCAPRO and Claus models. The Gail model identified 52.5% of patients as having ≥1.67% 5-year risk of breast cancer. Among patients identified as high-risk for breast cancer and eligible for screening, 9/9 (100%) were referred to a high-risk breast clinic. CONCLUSION: Among patients that completed the TC breast cancer risk assessment in a gynecologic oncology clinic, approximately 1 in 5 were identified to be at significantly elevated lifetime risk for breast cancer. The gynecologic oncologist's office might offer a convenient and feasible setting to incorporate this risk assessment into routine patient care, as gynecologic oncologists often have long-term patient relationships and participate in survivorship care.

Integration and usability of a digital cancer risk stratification tool to optimize identification of patients at risk for hereditary cancers: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a personal or family history of cancer may have elevated risk of developing future cancers, which often remains unrecognized due to lapses in screening. This pilot study assessed the usability and clinical outcomes of a cancer risk stratification tool in a gynecologic oncology clinic. METHODS: New gynecologic oncology patients were prompted to complete a commercially developed personal and family history-based risk stratification tool to assess eligibility for genetic testing using National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and estimated lifetime breast cancer risk using the Tyrer-Cuzick model. After use of the risk stratification tool, usability was assessed via completion rate and the System Usability Scale, and health literacy was assessed using the BRIEF Health Literacy Screening Tool. RESULTS: 130 patients were prompted to complete the risk stratification tool; 93 (72%) completed the tool. Race and ethnicity and insurance type were not associated with tool completion. The median System Usability Scale score was 83 out of 100 (interquartile range, 60-95). Health literacy positively correlated with perceived usability. Public insurance and race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White was associated with lower perceived usability. Sixty (65%) patients met eligibility criteria for genetic testing, and 21 (38% of 56 eligible patients) were candidates for enhanced breast cancer screening based on an estimated lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥20%. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients completed the digital cancer risk stratification tool. Older age, lower health literacy, public insurance, and race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White were associated with lower perceived tool usability.

Systematic evidence review and meta-analysis of outcomes associated with cancer genetic counseling.

PURPOSE: Genetic counseling (GC) is standard of care in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). A rigorous assessment of the data reported from published studies is crucial to ensure the evidence-based implementation of GC. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 patient-reported and health-services-related outcomes associated with pre- and post-test GC in GCRA in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 5393 screened articles met inclusion criteria. No articles reporting post-test GC outcomes met inclusion criteria. For patient-reported outcomes, pre-test GC significantly decreased worry, increased knowledge, and decreased perceived risk but did not significantly affect patient anxiety, depression, decisional conflict, satisfaction, or intent to pursue genetic testing. For health-services outcomes, pre-test GC increased correct genetic test ordering, reduced inappropriate services, increased spousal support for genetic testing, and expedited care delivery but did not consistently improve cancer prevention behaviors nor lead to accurate risk assessment. The GRADE certainty in the evidence was very low or low. No included studies elucidated GC effect on mortality, cascade testing, cost-effectiveness, care coordination, shared decision making, or patient time burden. CONCLUSION: The true impact of GC on relevant outcomes is not known low quality or absent evidence. Although a meta-analysis found that pre-test GC had beneficial effects on knowledge, worry, and risk perception, the certainty of this evidence was low according to GRADE methodology. Further studies are needed to support the evidence-based application of GC in GCRA.

"Go ahead and screen" - advice to healthcare systems for routine lynch syndrome screening from interviews with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC). Universal tumor screening (UTS) of newly diagnosed CRC cases is recommended to aid in diagnosis of LS and reduce cancer-related morbidity and mortality. However, not all health systems have adopted UTS processes and implementation may be inconsistent due to system and patient-level complexities. METHODS: To identify barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improvements of the UTS process from the patient perspective, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients recently diagnosed with CRC, but not screened for or aware of LS. Patients were recruited from eight regionally diverse US health systems. Interviews were conducted by telephone, 60-minutes, audio-recorded, and transcribed. An inductive, constant comparative analysis approach was employed.  RESULTS: We completed 75 interviews across the eight systems. Most participants were white (79%), about half (52%) were men, and the mean age was 60 years. Most self-reported either no (60%) or minimal (40%) prior awareness of LS. Overall, 96% of patients stated UTS should be a routine standard of care for CRC tumors, consistently citing four primary motivations for wanting to know their LS status and engage in the process for LS identification: "knowledge is power"; "family knowledge"; "prevention and detection"; and "treatment and surveillance." Common concerns pertaining to the process of screening for and identifying LS included: creating anticipatory worry for patients, the potential cost and the accuracy of the genetic test, and possibly having one's health insurance coverage impacted by the LS diagnosis. Patients suggested health systems communicate LS results in-person or by phone from a trained expert in LS; offer proactive verbal and written education about LS, the screening steps, and any follow-up surveillance recommendations; and support patients in communicating their LS screening to any of their blood relatives. CONCLUSION: Our qualitative findings demonstrate patients with CRC have a strong desire for healthcare systems to regularly implement and offer UTS. Patients offer key insights for health systems to guide future implementation and optimization of UTS and other LS screening programs and maximize diagnosis of individuals with LS and improve cancer-related surveillance and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not available: not a clinical trial.

Chatbot Artificial Intelligence for Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Most individuals with a hereditary cancer syndrome are unaware of their genetic status to underutilization of hereditary cancer risk assessment. Chatbots, or programs that use artificial intelligence to simulate conversation, have emerged as a promising tool in health care and, more recently, as a potential tool for genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. Here, we evaluated the existing literature on the use of chatbots in genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using key electronic databases to identify studies which use chatbots for genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. Eligible studies were further subjected to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria, evaluating five distinct chatbots. Three studies evaluated a chatbot that could perform genetic cancer risk assessment, one study evaluated a chatbot that offered patient counseling, and three studies included both functions. The pooled estimated completion rate for the genetic cancer risk assessment was 36.7% (95% CI, 14.8 to 65.9). Two studies included comprehensive patient characteristics, and none involved a comparison group. Chatbots varied as to the involvement of a health care provider in the process of risk assessment and counseling. CONCLUSION: Chatbots have been used to streamline genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling and hold promise for reducing barriers to genetic services. Data regarding user and nonuser characteristics are lacking, as are data regarding comparative effectiveness to usual care. Future research may consider the impact of chatbots on equitable access to genetic services.

Partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) pathogenic variants and ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 20% of ovarian cancers are due to an underlying germline pathogenic variant. While pathogenic variants in several genes have been well-established in the development of hereditary ovarian cancer (e.g. BRCA1/2, RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1, mismatch repair genes), the role of partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) remains uncertain. We sought to utilize meta-analysis to evaluate the association between PALB2 germline pathogenic variants and ovarian cancer. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating multigene panel testing in people with ovarian cancer. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies met inclusion criteria, including 48,194 people with ovarian cancer and information available on germline PALB2 pathogenic variant status. Among people with ovarian cancer and available PALB2 sequencing data, 0.4% [95% CI 0.3-0.4] harbored a germline pathogenic variant in the PALB2 gene. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for carrying a PALB2 pathogenic variant among the ovarian cancer population of 20,474 individuals who underwent germline testing was 2.48 [95% CI 1.57-3.90] relative to 123,883 controls. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that the pooled OR for harboring a PALB2 germline pathogenic variant among people with ovarian cancer compared to the general population is 2.48 [95% CI 1.57-3.90]. Prospective studies evaluating the role of germline PALB2 pathogenic variants in the development of ovarian cancer are warranted.

Do people with hereditary cancer syndromes inform their at-risk relatives? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose: To evaluate rates of familial disclosure of hereditary cancer syndrome information. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO no.: CRD42020134276). Key electronic databases were searched to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer syndrome cascade relative disclosure. Eligible studies were subjected to meta-analysis. Results: Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Among 11,711 included relatives, 70% (95% CI 60 - 78%) were informed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant; of 2,875 relatives informed of their risk who were evaluated for uptake of cascade testing, 43% (95% CI 27 - 61%) completed testing. Rates of disclosure were higher among female vs male relatives (79% [95% CI 73% - 84%] vs 67% [95% CI 57% - 75%]) and first-degree vs second-degree relatives (83% [95% CI 77% - 88%] vs 58% [95% CI 45 - 69%]). Conclusion: Nearly one-third of at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. Even among those informed, fewer than half subsequently complete genetic testing, representing a critical missed opportunity for precision cancer prevention. Innovation: Five studies evaluating interventions to improve disclosure rates were generally ineffective. Urgent work is needed to elucidate barriers to relative disclosure by probands to develop targeted interventions that can optimize proband-mediated cascade genetic testing rates.

Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 1% of individuals have a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, however, the majority are not aware. Collecting a cancer family history (CFH) can triage patients to receive genetic testing. To rigorously assess different methods of CFH collection, we compared a web-based tool (WBT) to usual care (clinician collects CFH) in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: New gynecologic oncology patients (seen 9/2019-9/2021) were randomized to one of three arms in a 2:2:1 allocation ratio: 1) usual care clinician CFH collection, 2) WBT completed at home, or 3) WBT completed in office. The WBT generated a cancer-focused pedigree and scores on eight validated cancer risk models. The primary outcome was collection of an adequate CFH (based on established guidelines) with usual care versus the WBT. RESULTS: We enrolled 250 participants (usual care - 110; WBT home - 105; WBT office - 35 [closed early due to COVID-19]). Within WBT arms, 109 (78%) participants completed the tool, with higher completion for office versus home (33 [94%] vs. 76 [72%], P = 0.008). Among participants completing the WBT, 63 (58%) had an adequate CFH versus 5 (5%) for usual care (P < 0.001). Participants completing the WBT were significantly more likely to complete genetic counseling (34 [31%] vs. 15 [14%], P = 0.002) and genetic testing (20 [18%] vs. 9 [8%], P = 0.029). Participant and provider WBT experience was favorable. CONCLUSIONS: WBTs for CFH collection are a promising application of health information technology, resulting in more comprehensive CFH and a significantly greater percentage of participants completing genetic counseling and testing.

A picture is worth a thousand words: advancing the use of visualization tools in implementation science through process mapping and matrix heat mapping.

BACKGROUND: Identifying key determinants is crucial for improving program implementation and achieving long-term sustainment within healthcare organizations. Organizational-level complexity and heterogeneity across multiple stakeholders can complicate our understanding of program implementation. We describe two data visualization methods used to operationalize implementation success and to consolidate and select implementation factors for further analysis. METHODS: We used a combination of process mapping and matrix heat mapping to systematically synthesize and visualize qualitative data from 66 stakeholder interviews across nine healthcare organizations, to characterize universal tumor screening programs of all newly diagnosed colorectal and endometrial cancers and understand the influence of contextual factors on implementation. We constructed visual representations of protocols to compare processes and score process optimization components. We also used color-coded matrices to systematically code, summarize, and consolidate contextual data using factors from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Combined scores were visualized in a final data matrix heat map. RESULTS: Nineteen process maps were created to visually represent each protocol. Process maps identified the following gaps and inefficiencies: inconsistent execution of the protocol, no routine reflex testing, inconsistent referrals after a positive screen, no evidence of data tracking, and a lack of quality assurance measures. These barriers in patient care helped us define five process optimization components and used these to quantify program optimization on a scale from 0 (no program) to 5 (optimized), representing the degree to which a program is implemented and optimally maintained. Combined scores within the final data matrix heat map revealed patterns of contextual factors across optimized programs, non-optimized programs, and organizations with no program. CONCLUSIONS: Process mapping provided an efficient method to visually compare processes including patient flow, provider interactions, and process gaps and inefficiencies across sites, thereby measuring implementation success via optimization scores. Matrix heat mapping proved useful for data visualization and consolidation, resulting in a summary matrix for cross-site comparisons and selection of relevant CFIR factors. Combining these tools enabled a systematic and transparent approach to understanding complex organizational heterogeneity prior to formal coincidence analysis, introducing a stepwise approach to data consolidation and factor selection.

Barriers to completion of cascade genetic testing: how can we improve the uptake of testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome?

Cascade testing for familial cancer syndromes has historically been difficult to execute. As part of a facilitated cascade testing pathway, we evaluated barriers to completion of cascade testing. Our previously published study evaluated a facilitated cascade testing pathway whereby a genetics team facilitated at-risk relative (ARR) cascade testing through telephone genetic counseling and mailed saliva kit testing. This follow-up study evaluated barriers to completion of cascade genetic testing through six-month follow-up telephone interviews. Probands identified 114 ARRs, of whom 97 were successfully contacted by telephone. Among those contacted, 83 (86%) reported interest in genetic testing and 14 (14%) declined. Among those reporting interest in testing, 71% (69/83) completed testing. Follow-up telephone interviews revealed that 14 ARRs did not complete testing despite reporting interest for the following reasons: concern about genetic discrimination, fear of a positive result and belief that the pathogenic variant was not relevant to his/her health. Five ARRs reported that they remained interested in testing and the telephone call prompted completion of testing. Even when facilitated by a medical team with prioritization of relative convenience, significant barriers to cascade testing ARRs for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome persist due to concern about genetic discrimination, cost, and fear of positive test results.

What happens in the long term: Uptake of cancer surveillance and prevention strategies among at-risk relatives with pathogenic variants detected via cascade testing.

BACKGROUND: Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes offers affected relatives the opportunity to pursue cancer screening and risk-reducing surgery and thus reduces morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to measure the long-term utilization of targeted cancer prevention and quality of life among at-risk relatives offered clinician-facilitated cascade genetic testing. METHODS: In a pilot study, at-risk relatives of patients with a hereditary cancer syndrome were contacted directly by the clinical team and offered telephone genetic counseling and genetic testing via an at-home, mailed saliva kit. Two-year follow-up results evaluating the use of targeted cancer prevention strategies and the quality of life for enrolled relatives were reported. Quality-of-life was measured with validated surveys, and scores were compared to the time of initial contact by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Ninety-five at-risk relatives were enrolled in the initial pilot study, and 72 (76%) participated in the 2-year follow-up; 57 of these (79%) had completed genetic testing. Twenty-five of those 57 relatives (44%) were found to harbor an inherited pathogenic variant. Guideline-based cancer surveillance was recommended to 18 relatives; 13 (72%) completed at least one recommended screening, and six (33%) completed all recommended screenings. Risk-reducing surgery was recommended to 10 relatives; four (40%) completed a total of eight procedures. Quality-of-life surveys demonstrated low levels of anxiety, depression, distress, and uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year follow-up of the original pilot study revealed that clinician-facilitated cascade testing resulted in genetically targeted cancer screening and prevention with preserved quality of life. These results, to be confirmed by larger randomized controlled trials, suggest that medical systems should consider supporting clinician-facilitated cascade testing programs.

Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, providing relatives the opportunity for early detection and prevention of cancer. The current standard is for patients to contact and encourage relatives (patient-mediated contact) to undergo counseling and testing. Direct relative contact by the medical team or testing laboratory has shown promise but is complicated by privacy laws and lack of infrastructure. We sought to compare outcomes associated with patient-mediated and direct relative contact for hereditary cancer cascade genetic counseling and testing in the first meta-analysis on this topic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42020134276). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer cascade testing. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Among relatives included in the meta-analysis, 48% (95% CI, 38 to 58) underwent cascade genetic counseling and 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) cascade genetic testing. Compared with the patient-mediated approach, direct relative contact resulted in significantly higher uptake of genetic counseling for all relatives (63% [95% CI, 49 to 75] v 35% [95% CI, 24 to 48]) and genetic testing for first-degree relatives (62% [95% CI, 49 to 73] v 40% [95% CI, 32 to 48]). Methods of direct contact included telephone calls, letters, and e-mails; respective rates of genetic testing completion were 61% (95% CI, 51 to 70), 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59), and 48% (95% CI, 45 to 50). CONCLUSION: Most relatives at risk for hereditary cancer do not undergo cascade genetic counseling and testing, forgoing potentially life-saving medical interventions. Compared with patient-mediated contact, direct relative contact increased rates of cascade genetic counseling and testing, arguing for a shift in the care delivery paradigm, to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

Economic Evaluation of Universal Lynch Syndrome Screening Protocols among Newly Diagnosed Patients with Colorectal Cancer.

We conducted an updated economic evaluation, from a healthcare system perspective, to compare the relative effectiveness and efficiency of eight Lynch syndrome (LS) screening protocols among newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We developed decision analytic models for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients. Model assumptions and parameter values were based on literature and expert opinion. All costs were in 2018 USD. For identifying LS cases, the direct germline sequencing (DGS) protocol provided the best performance (sensitivity 99.90%, 99.57-99.93%; specificity 99.50%, 97.28-99.85%), followed by the tumor sequencing to germline sequencing (TSGS) protocol (sensitivity, 99.42%, 96.55-99.63%; specificity, 96.58%, 96.46-96.60%). The immunohistochemistry (IHC) protocol was most efficient at $20,082 per LS case identified, compared to microsatellite instability (MSI) ($22,988), DGS ($31,365), and TSGS ($104,394) protocols. Adding double-somatic testing to IHC and MSI protocols did not change sensitivity and specificity, increased costs by 6% and 3.5%, respectively, but reduced unexplained cases by 70% and 50%, respectively. DGS would be as efficient as the IHC protocol when the cost of germline sequencing declines under $368 indicating DGS could be an efficient option in the near future. Until then, IHC and MSI protocols with double-somatic testing would be the optimal choices.

Leveraging Health Information Technology to Collect Family Cancer History: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Collection of family cancer histories (FCHs) can identify individuals at risk for familial cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the literature on existing strategies whereby providers use information technology to assemble FCH. METHODS: A systematic search of online databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase) between 1980 and 2020 was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed through the chi-square test (ie, Cochrane Q test) and the inconsistency statistic (I2). A random-effects analysis was used to calculate the pooled proportions and means. RESULTS: The comprehensive search produced 4,005 publications. Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven information technology tools were evaluated. Eighteen out of 28 studies were electronic surveys administered before visits (18, 64.3%). Five studies administered tablet surveys in offices (5, 17.8%). Four studies collected electronic survey via kiosk before visits (4, 14.3%), and one study used animated virtual counselor during visits (1, 3.6%). Among the studies that use an FCH tool, the pooled estimate of the overall completion rate was 86% (CI, 72% to 96%), 84% (CI, 65% to 97%) for electronic surveys before visits, 89% (CI, 0.74 to 0.98) for tablet surveys, and 85% (CI, 0.66 to 0.98) for surveys via kiosk. Mean time required for completion was 31.0 minutes (CI, 26.1 to 35.9), and the pooled estimate of proportions of participants referred to genetic testing was 12% (CI, 4% to 23%). CONCLUSION: Our review found that electronic FCH collection can be completed successfully by patients in a time-efficient manner with high rates of satisfaction.

Achieving universal genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer: Are we there yet? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services. METHODS: We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]). CONCLUSIONS: Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.