International students' perspectives on the genetic counseling application process.

Between 2018 and 2023, one percent of matched applicants to North American genetic counseling graduate programs (GCGPs) have been international applicants (IAs). The COVID-19 pandemic led to changes in the GCGP application processes in 2020, most notably the incorporation of virtual interviews and GRE waivers, which uniquely impacted IAs. Twelve international genetic counseling (GC) students who matriculated into a U.S.-based GCGP in 2021 or 2022 participated in this qualitative study (42% of the total enrolled) to understand their application experience. Cost, location of the program, and rapport during interviews were the most important factors identified by IAs to apply to and rank the GCGPs. Shadowing and volunteer experiences relevant to GC were cited as important for applicants to learn about a genetic counseling career, but many had challenges finding opportunities in their home countries. Unique logistical challenges in taking the GRE, transcript evaluation services, and standardized English proficiency tests were described. Although virtual interviews offered the same experience as domestic applicants, the time difference was a major challenge, requiring IAs to interview through the night, creating additional stressors. Nine of 12 were re-applicants and shared that engaging with GCGPs early in the process was beneficial for improving applications and, at times, requesting waivers for transcript evaluation requirements and considering unique volunteering experiences. Participants suggested GCGPs can address barriers by providing more specific information on their websites as it pertains to IAs, and contact information for the international student office. Improving awareness of the applicants' backgrounds, home country experiences, and time zone differences would provide IAs with a more equitable application experience. Addressing these barriers could help promote diversity, equity, and inclusion allowing for more IAs and the growth of the genetic counseling profession.

Building Efficiency and Scaling With a Remote Genetic Counseling Program.

Purpose A third-party telemedicine (TM) genetic counseling program was initiated at a large community oncology practice spanning 35 clinical sites with 110 clinicians and 97 advanced practice providers throughout Tennessee and Georgia. Patients and Methods Appropriate patients were referred through the electronic health record (EHR) based on current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. A combination of TM and genetic counseling assistants enhanced convenience, broadened access, and decreased no-show rates. Physician education for mutation-positive screening recommendations was provided through deep integration of dedicated genetic counseling notes in the EHR. Results From 2019 to 2022, the program expanded from 1 to 20 clinics with referrals growing from 195 to 885. An average of 82% of patients completed genetic counseling consultations over TM with more than 70% completing genetic testing. The average was 4 to 6 days from referral to consultation. The no-show rate was maintained at less than 7%. In 2023, this model supported all 35 clinics across the state. Conclusion Our program illustrates how remote genetic counseling programs are an effective choice for scaling genetics care across a large community oncology practice. Deep integration of TM genetic counseling within the EHR helps identify patients who are high risk and improves test adoption, patient keep rate, and turnaround time, helping to achieve better patient outcomes.

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.

Increased ease of access to genetic counseling for low-income women with breast cancer using a point of care screening tool.

Increased access to genetic counseling services is of prime importance in minority and underserved populations where genetic testing is currently underutilized. Our study tested a point of care screening tool to identify high-risk low-income patients for genetic counseling in a busy county hospital oncology clinic. Eligible breast patients treated at a "safety-net" hospital, were scored into 'high-risk' (> or = 6) or 'low-risk' (< 6) groups using a screening tool on personal and family history of cancer. Genetic counseling and testing were provided at the Vanderbilt Hereditary Cancer Program (VHCP) to all 'high-risk' and some 'low-risk' participants considered to need genetic counseling by their oncologist. Ninety-nine women with a history of breast cancer were enrolled onto the study over a period of 26 months. 53.5% (53/99) had a 'high-risk' score and ethnic predominance of African-American (60.4%). Of these, 67.9% (36/53) were counseled, and 91.6% (33/36) tested with a 9% (3/33) mutation positive rate. In the 'low-risk' group, 28.2% (13/46) still met current NCCN guidelines and were referred by their oncologist. 69.2% (9/13) were counseled and tested. The 'low-risk' group of predominantly Caucasian (41.3%) participants carried a 20% (2/10) mutation positive rate; which was later adjusted to 10% to exclude a mutation not conferring a strong breast cancer risk. The screening tool was well accepted by patients; and increased access to genetic counseling. There was a subset of breast cancer affected women under 45 with no reported family history that failed to be identified. Minor alterations to the tool would enhance concordance with current NCCN guidelines.

The impact of variant classification on the clinical management of hereditary cancer syndromes.

PURPOSE: The reclassification of genetic variants poses a significant challenge for laboratories and clinicians. Variant review has resulted in the reclassification of variants of unknown significance as well as the reclassification of previously established pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants. These reclassifications have the potential to alter the clinical management of patients with hereditary cancer syndromes. METHODS: Results were reviewed for 1694 patients seen for hereditary cancer evaluation between August 2012 and May 2017 to determine the frequency and types of variant reclassification. Patients with reclassifications with high potential for impact were monitored for alterations in organ surveillance, prophylactic surgery, and cascade testing. RESULTS: One hundred forty-two variants were reclassified representing 124/1694 (7.3%) patients; 11.3% of reclassifications (16/142) had a high potential for clinical impact with 94% (15/16) altering clinical management of patients with 56% (9/16) changing multiple areas of management. CONCLUSION: While reclassifications are rare, the impact on clinical management is profound. In many cases, patients with downgraded pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants had years of unnecessary organ surveillance and underwent unneeded surgical intervention. In addition, cascade testing misidentified those at risk for developing cancers, thereby altering the management across generations. The frequency and types of alterations to clinical management highlight the need for timely variant reclassification.

Successful strategies for increasing African American participation in cancer genetic studies: hopeful signs for equalizing the benefits of genetic medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prior success in recruiting African Americans to an in-house cancer genetics registry could be duplicated when recruiting to a national registry requiring a significantly increased level of commitment. Additionally, to determine which recruitment sources and practices yielded the highest number of African American participants. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of recruitment sources, practices, and results for recruitment to the Cancer Genetics Network (CGN; a national research registry), from 2000 to 2005 was conducted. These results were compared to previous experience in recruiting African Americans to the Family Cancer Registry (FCR; an in-house registry) during the period 1992-2005. RESULTS: In the 1st year of recruitment to the CGN, African Americans accounted for 24% of those consenting to participate in the CGN registry from our center. This compares to an average annual rate of 27% for the FCR during the years 1998-2005, and a rate of less than 1% from 1992 to 1998. By 2005, African Americans accounted for 27% of CGN participants recruited through the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, one of eighteen participating institutions in the CGN. Hospital-based resources such as cancer treatment clinics and tumor registries yielded the highest percentage of African American participants (66.5%), and self-referral yielded the lowest (0%). Seventy-seven percent of African Americans were actively sought out and recruited from treatment clinics, whereas the vast majority of Caucasian participants were recruited passively during the course of genetic counseling sessions that were scheduled for reasons unrelated to participation in cancer research. There were no known instances of African Americans contacting CGN staff after reading printed recruitment materials or internet advertisements. CONCLUSIONS: The increased level of commitment required of CGN participants did not deter African Americans from participating in cancer genetics research. Recruitment strategies responsible for dramatically increasing recruitment rates to the FCR from 1998 to 2000 were equally effective when used for recruitment to the CGN. The most effective recruitment sources were high-yield venues such as cancer treatment clinics and tumor registries, and active recruitment methods yielded the highest number of African American participants. Advertising through internet announcements and printed recruitment materials did not appear to be effective.