An Australian mainstream genetic testing program: Clinicians views about current and future practices.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing results can guide treatment decisions for oncology patients and are now offered to many cancer patients. Mainstream testing refers to genetic testing arranged by a non-genetics specialist. This repeated cross-sectional study aimed: (1) to capture clinician views on the existing mainstreaming genetic testing program for ovarian, breast, prostate, and endometrial cancer patients, and (2) to ascertain the interest of clinicians to consider changing practice to adopt mainstream testing. METHODS: Mainstreaming has occurred since 2015 for patients with ovarian and some breast cancer patients, expanding to include prostate cancer patients in 2019, and endometrial cancer patients in 2020. Two web-based surveys were administered within two health districts, covering seven hospitals in NSW. RESULTS: Fifty-four clinicians (70% response rate) participated. Clinicians who had arranged mainstream genetic testing (n = 30) were overall satisfied (76%), viewed the process as time-efficient and accessible for patients, and desired continuation of the program. Of those clinicians yet to engage in the program (n = 24), 88% expressed an interest in learning about mainstream testing. These clinicians identified time constraints, maintenance of current genetic knowledge, and completing the consenting and counseling process as barriers to mainstreaming. Future mainstreaming models are discussed. CONCLUSION: From the clinician's perspective, the mainstreaming program is considered a desirable pathway for germline testing of oncology patients. Access to ongoing education and resources is needed for the ongoing success of the program.

"Out of the blue": A qualitative study exploring the experiences of women and next of kin receiving unexpected results from BRA-STRAP research gene panel testing.

In the genomic era, the availability of gene panel and whole genome/exome sequencing is rapidly increasing. Opportunities for providing former patients with new genetic information are also increasing over time and recontacting former patients with new information is likely to become more common. Breast cancer Refined Analysis of Sequence Tests-Risk And Penetrance (BRA-STRAP) is an Australian study of individuals who had previously undertaken BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing, with no pathogenic variants detected. Using a waiver of consent, stored DNA samples were retested using a breast/ovarian cancer gene panel and clinically significant results returned to the patient (or next of kin, if deceased). This qualitative study aimed to explore patient experiences, opinions, and expectations of recontacting in the Australian hereditary cancer setting. Participants were familial cancer clinic patients (or next of kin) who were notified of a new pathogenic variant identified via BRA-STRAP. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted approximately 6 weeks post-result. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Thirty participants (all female; average age = 57; range 36-84) were interviewed. Twenty-five were probands, and five were next of kin. Most women reported initial shock upon being recontacted with unexpected news, after having obtained a sense of closure related to their initial genetic testing experiences and cancer diagnosis. For most, this initial distress was short-lived, followed by a process of readjustment, meaning-making and adaptation that was facilitated by perceived clinical and personal utility of the information. Women were overall satisfied with the waiver of consent approach and recontacting process. Results are in line with previous studies suggesting that patients have positive attitudes about recontacting. Women in this study valued new genetic information gained from retesting and were satisfied with the BRA-STRAP recontact model. Practice implications to facilitate readjustment and promote psychosocial adaptation were identified.

Proband-mediated interventions to increase disclosure of genetic risk in families with a BRCA or Lynch syndrome condition: a systematic review.

Interventions to assist family communication about inherited cancer risk have the potential to improve family cancer outcomes. This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of proband-mediated interventions employed within genetics clinics to increase disclosure of genetic risk to at-risk relatives. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed and PsycINFO were searched for publications between 1990-2020. The quality of studies was assessed. From 5605 records reviewed, 9 studies (4 randomised control trials and 5 cohort studies) were included involving families with BRCA1, BRCA2 and Lynch syndrome. Intervention delivery modes included genetic counselling with additional telephone or in-person follow-up, letters, videos, and decision aids. The percentages of at-risk relatives informed by the proband about their risk ranged from 54.0% to 95.5% in the intervention or family-mediated comparison group. Of those who were informed, 24.4-60.0% contacted a genetics clinic and 22.8-76.2% had genetic testing after they were counselled at a genetics clinic. Significant differences between intervention and control group were reported on all three outcomes by one study, and with relatives contacting a genetics clinic by another study. The studies suggest but do not conclusively show, that tailored genetic counselling with additional follow-up can increase both the proportion of informed relatives and relatives who contact the genetics clinic. With the increase in germline testing, interventions are required to consider the family communication process and address post-disclosure variables (e.g., relative's perceptions, emotional reactions) through engagement with probands and relatives to maximise the public health benefit of identifying inherited cancer risk in families.

Building staff capability, opportunity, and motivation to provide smoking cessation to people with cancer in Australian cancer treatment centres: development of an implementation intervention framework for the Care to Quit cluster randomised controlled trial.

Few rigorous studies provide a clear description of the methodological approach of developing an evidence-based implementation intervention, prior to implementation at scale. This study describes the development, mapping, rating, and review of the implementation strategies for the Care to Quit smoking cessation trial, prior to application in nine cancer services across Australia. Key stakeholders were engaged in the process from conception through to rating, reviewing and refinement of strategies and principles. An initial scoping review identified 21 barriers to provision of evidence-based smoking cessation care to patients with cancer, which were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to identify relevant intervention functions. The mapping identified 26 relevant behaviour change techniques, summarised into 11 implementation strategies. The implementation strategies were rated and reviewed against the BCW Affordability, Practicality, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, and Equity criteria by key stakeholders during two interactive workshops to facilitate a focus on feasible interventions likely to resonate with clinical staff. The implementation strategies and associated intervention tools were then collated by form and function to provide a practical guide for implementing the intervention. This study illustrates the rigorous use of theories and frameworks to arrive at a practical intervention guide, with potential to inform future replication and scalability of evidence-based implementation across a range of health service settings. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10742-022-00288-6.

Implementation and evaluation of a smoking cessation checklist implemented within Australian cancer services.

INTRODUCTION: The detrimental impact of smoking tobacco can be mitigated when cancer patients quit smoking. Smoking cessation clinical pathways are inconsistently implemented within Australian cancer services. The aim of this study was to pilot test and evaluate the reach, adoption, and implementation of a smoking cessation checklist within oncology services. METHODS: The checklist was implemented over a 6-month period in medical and radiation oncology services at two metropolitan and one rural hospital. The RE-AIM framework guided the evaluation process. Implementation strategies included training, process mapping, and identifying champions. Evaluation measures included a clinical data audit, surveys, and semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs). RESULTS: Healthcare professionals (HCPs; N = 63; 41% oncologists, 32% nurses, 27% others) completed 1276 checklists with cancer patients between November 2019 and December 2020. Of the 126 (10%) identified current smokers, 34 (27%) accepted a referral to either Quitline, Nicotine Replacement Therapy, to a general practitioner or dedicated HCP for follow-up telephone support. There was variation in screening adoption by HCPs across the three hospitals, with 16%, 92% and 89.5% of patients screened respectively. Contextual factors, such as perceived commitment, role identity, and communication processes appeared to influence the outcomes. CONCLUSION: A checklist is a simple, effective, and versatile intervention used to standardise smoking cessation practices in medical and radiation oncology services. The checklist supports standardisation of referral practices to smoking cessation services for cancer patients by either oncologist and/or nurses.

Evaluation of a mainstream genetic testing program for women with ovarian or breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Mainstream genetic testing refers to genetic testing arranged by a patient's treating specialist. The aim of this study was to retrospectively review a Sydney-based ovarian cancer mainstream genetic testing program. METHODS: A Cancer Genetics Service (CGS)-supported mainstream genetic testing program was commenced in 2015. The CGS provided training, paperwork and ongoing and adaptable advice regarding appropriate genes for testing and interpretation of results. Written and electronic medical records were reviewed until August 2019 to assess patient and family history characteristics, genetic testing eligibility, results and posttest management for women who had testing coordinated via mainstreaming or by the CGS. RESULTS: Genetic testing was arranged for 289 women with ovarian cancer. Prior to 2017, 44% of genetic tests were mainstreamed, compared with 76% of tests from 2017 onwards. CGS was more likely to arrange testing for women with a strong family history of cancer and nonserous pathology. Germline pathogenic variants were detected in 13.7% (19/138) of women who had mainstream testing and 20.3% (14/69) of women tested by the CGS. Referral for posttest counseling occurred for pathogenic variant carriers identified through mainstreaming. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated successful uptake of a mainstream ovarian cancer genetic testing program by medical oncologists, as evidenced by higher proportion and absolute numbers of eligible ovarian cancer patients accessing genetic testing through this pathway over time. The genetic testing criteria were appropriately assessed by oncologists and posttest referral occurred where required.

When to break the news and whose responsibility is it? A cross-sectional qualitative study of health professionals' views regarding disclosure of BRCA genetic cancer risk.

OBJECTIVES: Disclosure of a hereditary condition in the family poses notable challenges for patients who often seek the assistance of genetic health professionals (GHPs). This study aimed to investigate GHPs' opinions about the ideal time for disclosure to offspring and their responsibility to at-risk relatives. DESIGN: Cross-sectional qualitative study. SETTING: Genetic familial cancer clinics related to mostly secondary and tertiary care hospitals and centres in urban, regional and rural areas across all states of Australia. PARTICIPANTS: GHPs (N=73) including clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, medical specialists, nurses, surgeons and mental health specialists (eg, psychiatrists, psychologists) who had worked with BRCA1 and BRCA2 families for an average of 9 years. RESULTS: Focus groups and interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. GHPs perceived that life stage, maturity, parents' knowledge and capacity to disseminate information influenced parent-offspring disclosure. In general, GHPs recommended early informal conversations with offspring about a family illness. GHPs considered that facilitation of disclosure to relatives using counselling strategies was their responsibility, yet there were limitations to their role (eg, legal and resource constraints). Variability exists in the extent to which genetic clinics overcome challenges to disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: GHPs' views on the ideal time for the disclosure of genetic risk are generally dependent on the patient's age and relative's ability to disclose information. A responsibility towards the patient and their at-risk relative was widely accepted as a role of a GHP but views vary depending on legislative and specialty differences. Greater uniformity is needed in genetic procedural guidelines and the role of each discipline (eg, geneticists, genetic counsellors, oncologists, nurses and mental health specialists) in genetic clinics to manage disclosure challenges.

Health professional and at-risk BRCA young adult perspectives about information needs: What does Gen Y need to know?

Young adults at risk of a hereditary condition require the provision of accurate information to make an informed decision about genetic testing and risk management options. At-risk young adults' (18- to 40-year olds) preferences for information and resources, and genetic-related health professionals' (GHPs) views on young adults' information needs, are largely unknown in the literature. This study aimed to clarify and compare the information needs of emerging (18- to 25-year olds) and early (26- to 40-year olds) adults. Resource preferences of young adults were also explored. Findings are drawn from two datasets: questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with at-risk young adults from BRCA1 or BRCA2 families (N = 32), and focus groups with GHPs (N = 73) working in Australian familial cancer clinics. Both datasets were analyzed using framework analysis. Emerging adults, particularly those who had not attended a clinic, wanted to know the rationale for genetic testing and basic genetic facts. Early adults were concerned about reproductive issues and cancer risk for future or current children. Information needs reported by young adults but not reported by GHPs include male cancer risk, finding reputable information, understanding test results (e.g., negative), and understanding risk terminology (e.g., lifetime cancer risk). Young adults' satisfaction with current information received was suboptimal, yet uptake of genetic-related resources was generally low. Getting information to this cohort remains a challenge for GHPs. Emerging adults showed a preference to obtain information through technologically-based formats (e.g., websites, social media), whereas early adults used a wider range of formats (e.g., websites, booklets). Awareness of and access to genetic information prior to genetic clinic attendance is needed. A review of the utility of current resources available for at-risk young adults would be helpful.

Talking across generations: Family communication about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic cancer risk.

While family communication about a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) pathogenic variant can be a catalyst for the uptake of risk-reducing measures in young adults, disseminating information within families and across generations is complex. This study aimed to explore how young adults and their families communicate about a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant, from a family systems perspective. In-depth family interviews and questionnaires (N = 67 individuals; 21 families) were completed at four metropolitan and regional genetic clinics in Australia. Data involved thematic analysis and interpretation based on family systems theory, including the use of standardized measures. Six key themes were identified and explored: (1) Responsibility to protect, (2) "It's a woman's problem," (3) Family culture influences communication, (4) Adversarial growth and connection, (5) Key events can be relational turning points, and (6) Health professionals can help. Family identities were solidified through the incorporation of a pathogenic variant in family scripts, while members of the family who held differing views to their families expressed less agreeableness and openness to disseminate information. The collective family's experience and perspective toward a pathogenic variant can influence a young adult's decision-making about genetic testing, risk-management, and family planning. The utilization of family therapy skills in routine practice would be helpful in facilitating communication and the inclusion of standardized measures is beneficial to identify individuals needing ongoing psychological support. Understanding relationship difficulties that arise from family members holding divergent views can offer insight into future research inquiry and areas of further training and clinical support.