RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) identifies targets for precision cancer treatments, but also secondary hereditary risks. Oncologists are poorly trained to communicate the results of TGP, especially among patients with lower health literacy, poorer genetics knowledge, and higher mistrust. African American (AA) patients are especially vulnerable to poor understanding due to significant cancer disparities and lower uptake of TGP. The goal of this research is to inform the development of an internet-based brief educational support for oncologists to prepare them to provide better decisional support related to TGP for their AA cancer patients. METHODS: This mixed-methods study used semi-structured interviews of oncologists to inform development of an online survey with a convenience sample of US-based oncologists (n = 50) to assess perceptions of the challenges of TGP and communicating results to AA patients. RESULTS: Most interviewed oncologists felt it was important to consider racial/cultural differences when communicating about hereditary risks. Cost, family dynamics, discrimination concerns, and medical mistrust were identified as particularly salient. Survey respondents' views related to AAs and perceptions of TGP were strongly associated with years since completing training, with recent graduates expressing stronger agreement with statements identifying barriers/disadvantages to TGP for AA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists who had more recently completed training expressed more negative perceptions of TGP and more perceived challenges in communicating about TGP with their AA patients. Focused training for oncologists that addresses barriers specific to AAs may be helpful in supporting improved communication about TGP and improved decisional support for AA patients with cancer considering TGP to evaluate their tumors.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We examined how responsibility (the "duty to inform relatives about genetic testing results") is understood and enacted among Swiss and Korean women carrying BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants. METHODS: In-depth interviews and/or focus groups with 46 Swiss and 22 Korean carriers were conducted, using an identical interview guide. Data were analyzed inductively and translated into English for cross-country comparisons. RESULTS: We identified five modes of responsibility in both samples: Persuader, Enabler, Relayer, Delayer, and Decliner. The Enabler and Relayer modes were the most common in both countries. They followed the rational imperative of health and norms of competence and self-determination, respectively. The Relayer mode transmitted information without trying to influence relatives' decisions. The Delayer and Decliner modes withheld information, deeming it the best way to safeguard the family during that specific moment of its trajectory. Responsibility to disclose testing results was influenced by culturally diverging conceptions of the family unit and socio-contextual norms. CONCLUSION: Responsibility primarily reflects the imperative of health prevention; findings demonstrate various interpretations, including the sense of family caring achieved through controlled disclosure of genetic information. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Findings offer healthcare providers socio-anthropological insights to assist probands navigate the disclosure of genetic information within their families. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04214210 (registered Nov 2, 2020), KCT 0005643 (registered Nov 23, 2020).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) patients with pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in cancer predisposition genes may be eligible for U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapies, clinical trials, or enhanced screening. Studies suggest that eligible patients are missing genetics-informed care due to restrictive testing criteria. OBJECTIVE: To establish the prevalence of actionable PGVs among prospectively accrued, unselected PCa patients, stratified by their guideline eligibility. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive, unselected PCa patients were enrolled at 15 sites in the USA from October 2019 to August 2021, and had multigene cancer panel testing. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Correlates between the prevalence of PGVs and clinician-reported demographic and clinical characteristics were examined. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 958 patients (median [quartiles] age at diagnosis 65 [60, 71] yr), 627 (65%) had low- or intermediate-risk disease (grade group 1, 2, or 3). A total of 77 PGVs in 17 genes were identified in 74 patients (7.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2-9.6%). No significant difference was found in the prevalence of PGVs among patients who met the 2019 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Prostate criteria (8.8%, 43/486, 95% CI 6.6-12%) versus those who did not (6.6%, 31/472, 95% CI 4.6-9.2%; odds ratio 1.38, 95% CI 0.85-2.23), indicating that these criteria would miss 42% of patients (31/74, 95% CI 31-53%) with PGVs. The criteria were less effective at predicting PGVs in patients from under-represented populations. Most PGVs (81%, 60/74) were potentially clinically actionable. Limitations include the inability to stratify analyses based on individual ethnicity due to low numbers of non-White patients with PGVs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that almost half of PCa patients with PGVs are missed by current testing guidelines. Comprehensive germline genetic testing should be offered to all patients with PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: One in 13 patients with prostate cancer carries an inherited variant that may be actionable for the patient's current care or prevention of future cancer, and could benefit from expanded testing criteria.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Research on the perceived utility of genomic sequencing has focused primarily on pediatric populations and on individuals and families with rare genetic diseases. Here, we evaluate how well a multifaceted perceived utility model developed with these populations applies to a diverse, adult population aged 18-49 at risk for hereditary cancer and propose new considerations for the model. METHODS: Participants received clinical genomic sequencing in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of participants at 1 and 6 months after results disclosure. We used an approach influenced by grounded theory to examine perceptions of the utility of genomic sequencing and analyzed how utility in CHARM mapped to the published multifaceted perceived utility model, noting which domains were represented or absent and which were most salient to our population. RESULTS: Participants' discussions of utility often involved multiple domains and revealed the variety of ways in which receiving sequencing results can impact one's life. Results demonstrated that an individual's perception of utility can change over the life course when sequenced at a relatively young age and may be influenced by the resources available to them to act on the results. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the relevance of a multifaceted perceived utility model for a diverse adult population at risk for hereditary cancer. We identified refinements that could make the model more robust, including emphasizing the overlapping nature of the domains and the importance of life stage and personal resources to the perception of utility.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) individuals face a 1 in 40 (2.5%) risk of having a BRCA mutation, which is 10 times the general population risk. JScreen launched the PEACH BRCA Study, a telehealth-based platform for BRCA education and testing, with the goal of creating an effective model for BRCA testing in low-risk AJ individuals who do not meet national testing criteria. Other goals were to determine the rate of BRCA mutations in this group, to assess the adequacy of screening for the 3 common AJ founder mutations only, and to assess satisfaction with the telehealth model to help inform a national launch of a broader cancer genetic testing program. METHODS: Criteria for participation included those who were AJ, resided in the metro-Atlanta area, were aged 25 and older, and had no personal or close family history of BRCA-related cancers. Pre-test education was provided through a video and written summary, followed by complimentary BRCA1/2 sequencing and post-test genetic counseling. Participants responded to pre- and post-test surveys, which assessed knowledge and satisfaction. Those who were not eligible to participate were sent genetic counseling resources and later surveyed. RESULTS: Five hundred one participants were tested and the results included 4 positives (0.8% positivity rate), 494 negatives, and 3 variants of uncertain significance. Overall satisfaction with the study process was high (96.9/100), knowledge about BRCA was high (97.5% of participants passed a pre-test knowledge quiz), and satisfaction with pre- and post-test education was high (97.9% of participants were satisfied with the pre-test video and written summary, and 99.5% felt that their post-test genetic counseling session was valuable). Many participants expressed interest in receiving broader cancer testing. CONCLUSIONS: The BRCA founder mutation rate in a low-risk AJ population was significantly lower than the previously established AJ rate of 1 in 40. It was also determined that a telehealth model for a cancer genetics program is effective and acceptable to the population tested. This study established interest in broader cancer genetic testing through a telehealth platform and suggested that testing may be successful in the Jewish community at a national level and potentially in other populations, provided that patient education and genetic counseling are adequately incorporated.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment for hereditary cancer syndromes is recommended in primary care, but family history is rarely collected in enough detail to facilitate risk assessment and referral - a roadblock that disproportionately impacts individuals with healthcare access barriers. We sought to qualitatively assess a literacy-adapted, electronic patient-facing family history tool developed for use in diverse, underserved patient populations recruited in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study. METHODS: Interview participants were recruited from a subpopulation of CHARM participants who experienced barriers to tool use in terms of spending a longer time to complete the tool, having incomplete attempts, and/or providing inaccurate family history in comparison to a genetic counselor-collected standard. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants about barriers and facilitators to tool use and overall tool acceptability; interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were coded based on a codebook developed using inductive techniques, and coded excerpts were reviewed to identify overarching themes related to barriers and facilitators to family history self-assessment and acceptability of the study tool. RESULTS: Interviewees endorsed the tool as easy to navigate and understand. However, they described barriers related to family history information, literacy and language, and certain tool functions. Participants offered concrete, easy-to-implement solutions to each barrier. Despite experience barriers to use of the tool, most participants indicated that electronic family history self-assessment was acceptable or preferable in comparison to clinician-collected family history. CONCLUSIONS: Even for participants who experienced barriers to tool use, family history self-assessment was considered an acceptable alternative to clinician-collected family history. Barriers experienced could be overcome with minor adaptations to the current family history tool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is a sub-study of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) trial, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03426878. Registered 8 February 2018.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the laboratory-related outcomes of participants who were offered genomic testing based on cancer family history risk assessment tools. METHODS: Patients from clinics that serve populations with access barriers, who are screened at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome based on adapted family history collection tools (the Breast Cancer Genetics Referral Screening Tool and PREMM5), were offered exome-based panel testing for cancer risk and medically actionable secondary findings. We used descriptive statistics, electronic health record review, and inferential statistics to explore participant characteristics and results, consultations and actions related to pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants identified, and variables predicting category of findings, respectively. RESULTS: Of all the participants, 87% successfully returned a saliva kit. Overall, 5% had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic cancer risk variant and 1% had a secondary finding. Almost all (14/15, 93%) participants completed recommended consultations with nongenetics providers after an average of 17 months. The recommended actions (eg, breast magnetic resonance imaging) were completed by 17 of 25 participants. Participant personal history of cancer and PREMM5 score were each associated with the category of findings (history and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .02; history and breast cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .01; PREMM5TM score; and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P < .001). CONCLUSION: This accessible model of hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing yielded results that were often acted upon by patients and physicians.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Integrating clinics designed to manage hereditary cancer risk into oncology care models has the potential to improve navigation of individuals predisposed to increased cancer risk through risk-reducing education, as well as recommendations for cancer screening and surveillance. Oncology nurses have the unique opportunity and optimal position to navigate patients through the complex subject of genetics and hereditary cancer syndromes. Effectively and efficiently navigating patients with pathogenic variants to minimize and manage hereditary cancer risk has the potential to improve patient outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objetivos: valorar el impacto emocional de recibir los resultados del estudio genético (EG) en pacientes con antecedente oncológico personal y sospecha de síndrome hereditario, aplicando el Cuestionario Multidimensional del Impacto de la evaluación de riesgo de cáncer (MICRA). Método: 219 pacientes con diagnóstico oncológico que concurrieron a la consulta de Asesoramiento Genético Oncológico en el Instituto Alexander Fleming entre 2014 y 2019, fueron evaluados aplicando el MICRA. Resultados: Edad promedio 49,84 (42,21; 62,02), 82,2% con diagnóstico de cáncer de mama. En un 16% se halló una variante patogénica (VP). La media de los puntajes obtenidos por cada subescala fue: 5,26 (DS=4,48, rango 0-22) para Malestar Emocional (ME); 12,31 (DS 7,42 rango 0-37) para Incertidumbre (I); 16,36 (DS 4.30 rango 2-20) para Experiencias Positivas (EP) y de 34,37 (DS 10,24 rango 8-62) para la puntuación global, lo que muestra un bajo nivel de ME e I y la presencia de EP entre los pacientes. Se hallaron diferencias significativas según tipo de resultado: los portadores de VP, mostraron una modesta elevación del nivel de ME y menor puntuación en EP, respecto de aquellos que tuvieron resultados no informativos o inciertos. Sin diferencias significativas según edad, pacientes con o sin hijos, o tiempo entre la realización del estudio y la aplicación del cuestionario. Conclusiones: Recibir resultados de estudio genético no produciría un impacto psicológico adverso. Las puntuaciones altas de esta escala podrían ser usadas para identificar a pacientes con malestar emocional y ofrecerles un seguimiento psicooncológico específico (AU)

Objective: The aim of our study is to assess the emotional impact of genetic test results disclosure to patients with a personal cancer history and suspected hereditary syndrome, applying the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) Questionnaire. Methods: two hundred nineteen patients affected with cancer, referred to the Cancer Genetic Counseling department at the Alexander Fleming Institute, between 2014 and 2019, were evaluated using the MICRA questionnaire. Results: Average age 49.84 (42,21; 62,02), 82.2% presented breast cancer. In 16% a pathogenic variant (PV) was found. The mean of the scores obtained for each subscale in the questionnaire was 5.26 (0-22, SD 4.48) for Distress (D); 12.31 (0-37, DS 7.42) for Uncertainty (U); 16.36 (2-20 SD 4.30) for Positive Experiences (PE) and 34.37 (8-62 SD 10.24) for the global score, which shows a low level of D and U and the presence of PE among the patients. Significant differences were found according to the type of result: We found modestly increased distress in PV carriers compared to patients who received uninformative or negative test results. No significant differences according to age, patients with or without children, or time between the completion of the genetic test and the application of the questionnaire. Conclusion: Genetic test disclosure does not seem to produce an adverse psychological impact. High scores on this scale could be used to identify patients with emotional distress and offer them specific psycho-oncological follow-up (AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This study explores perceptions and preferences on receiving genetic risk information about hereditary cancer risk in members of the Swedish public. We conducted qualitative content analysis of five focus group discussions with participants (n = 18) aged between 24 and 71 years, recruited from various social contexts. Two prominent phenomena surfaced around the interplay between the three stakeholders involved in risk disclosure: the individual, healthcare, and the relative at risk. First, there is a genuine will to share risk information that can benefit others, even if this is difficult and causes discomfort. Second, when the duty to inform becomes overwhelming, compromises are made, such as limiting one's own responsibility of disclosure or projecting the main responsibility onto another party. In conclusion, our results reveal a discrepancy between public expectations and the actual services offered by clinical genetics. These expectations paired with desire for a more personalized process and shared decision-making highlight a missing link in today's risk communication and suggest a need for developed clinical routines with stronger healthcare-patient collaboration. Future research needs to investigate the views of genetic professionals on how to address these expectations to co-create a transparent risk disclosure process which can realize the full potential of personalized prevention.

RESUMEN

RATIONALE: Men with BRCA-related cancer risks face increased disease risk as well as the prospect of passing on their risk to children. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates men's communicative appraisal and management of uncertainty related to BRCA-related cancer risks and decision-making. METHODS: Guided by uncertainty management theory (UMT), a directed content analysis approach was utilized to analyze interviews with 25 men who either carry a pathogenic BRCA variant or have a 50% chance of carrying a variant but have not yet been tested. RESULTS: Participants appraised their individual uncertainty as irrelevant or dangerous but appraised their familial uncertainty as dangerous. Men appraising their uncertainty as a danger exhibited more proactive information seeking healthcare behaviors-such as genetic testing and following recommended screenings-than men who appraised their uncertainty as irrelevant. Participants appraised familial uncertainty as a danger and were engaged in information management with family members, as well as encouraging family members to engage in proactive healthcare decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Men with BRCA-related cancer risks lack understanding about their risks and how to manage them. Increased attention should be paid to the development of interventions tailored specifically to men. Further, interventions focusing on strategically developing proactive family communication behaviors would also be beneficial to men and their families.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To review the current state of genomics and genetic testing in prostate cancer. DATA SOURCES: National guidelines, evidence-based summaries, peer-reviewed studies, and Web sites. A case study is presented to illustrate key points. CONCLUSION: Genetic profiling of prostate cancer tumors (somatic) and genetic testing of men with aggressive or metastatic disease (germline) are available. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses have a role in personalized health care and should be familiar with genetic testing options in prostate cancer because results may have implications for treatment options and at-risk family members. Hereditary cancer genetics can be complex and referrals to genetics specialists should be considered for hereditary cancer risk assessment and possible genetic testing.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To build skills related to cancer risk assessment including: identification of elevated personal or hereditary cancer risks, incorporation of cancer risk models into clinical care, and reviewing elements of cancer risk education and informed consent. DATA SOURCES: Consensus and professional guidelines and published literature. CONCLUSION: Applying consensus guidelines to cancer risk education, along with building partnerships with other providers, is essential for oncology nurses and will ensure proper patient care and follow-up. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Oncology nursing has embraced advances in genetics and genomics and developed standards of practice that include genetics and genomics competency.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Men with a germline pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant have increased risks for developing breast, pancreatic, prostate, and melanoma cancers, but little is known about how they understand and manage their cancer risks. This study examines how men with BRCA-related cancer risks manage uncertainty and information about their risks. Twenty-five men who were either a BRCA carrier or have a BRCA-positive first-degree family member that put the participant at 50% chance of also being a BRCA carrier were interviewed for this study. Using uncertainty management theory as a theoretical framework, this study demonstrates that men manage uncertainty by seeking information from female family members, websites, and healthcare providers, and are under-informed about their cancer risks. Further, in handling their information, men prefer information about cancer risk percentages and screening recommendations in the form of lists presented to them via websites, printed literature, proactive healthcare providers, and an identifiable male spokesperson. Finally, men used BRCA-related cancer risk information to make decisions about whether or not to engage in screening and prevention, manage their BRCA-related cancer risks, and overall family well-being-yet often at the expense of their own individual risks. Implications for genetic counseling and family conversations are discussed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The purpose of this study was to describe perceptions of cancer risk, cause, and needs in participants from a low socioeconomic background at risk for hereditary cancer. We surveyed 307 individuals with the Cancer Awareness and Needs survey and received 128 responses (41.6% response rate). Family history, genetics, and tobacco use were selected most frequently as a cause of cancer; 36% (n = 46) selected fate and/or God's will. A total of 87.5% (n = 112) understood that having a close family member with breast cancer could increase personal risk; however responses were varied when asked if this was related to risk for other cancers. Most participants had undergone cancer screening, half reported undergoing breast magnetic resonance imaging, which was associated with personal (p < 0.01) and family cancer history (p = 0.03). An additional 76.6% (n = 98) felt informed about cancer screening and most received information from health care providers and family or friends. Ensuring that patients and clinicians are educated about hereditary cancer risk, detection, and prevention should be priorities for future research.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate a unique approach to cancer risk assessment for improved access by smaller rural communities. METHODS: Local, on-site nurse navigators were trained and utilized as genetic counselor extenders (GCEs) to provide basic risk assessment and offer BRCA1/2 genetic testing to select patients based on a triaging process in collaboration with board-certified genetic counselors (CGCs). RESULTS: From August 2012 to July 2014, 12,477 family history questionnaires representing 8937 unique patients presenting for a screening mammogram or new oncology appointment were triaged. Of these, 8.2 % patients were identified at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer, and 4.2 % were identified at increased risk for other hereditary causes of cancer. A total of 75 of 1130 at-risk patients identified (6.6 %) completed a genetic risk assessment appointment; 23 with a GCE and 52 with a CGC. A review of the completed genetic test requisition forms from a 9-year pre-collaboration time period found that 16 % (20/125) did not appear to meet genetic testing criteria. Overall, there was a fourfold increase in patients accessing genetic services in this study period compared to the pre-collaboration time period. Efficiency of this model was assessed by determining time spent by the CGC in all activities related to the collaboration, which amounted to approximately 16 h/month. Adjustments have been made and the program continues to be monitored for opportunities to improve efficiency. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of CGCs and GCEs collaborating to improve access to quality services in an efficient manner.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing in cancer research may reveal germline variants of clinical significance. We report patient preferences for return of results and the prevalence of incidental pathogenic germline variants (PGVs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Targeted exome sequencing of 202 genes was carried out in 1000 advanced cancers using tumor and normal DNA in a research laboratory. Pathogenic variants in 18 genes, recommended for return by The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, as well as PALB2, were considered actionable. Patient preferences of return of incidental germline results were collected. Return of results was initiated with genetic counseling and repeat CLIA testing. RESULTS: Of the 1000 patients who underwent sequencing, 43 had likely PGVs: APC (1), BRCA1 (11), BRCA2 (10), TP53 (10), MSH2 (1), MSH6 (4), PALB2 (2), PTEN (2), TSC2 (1), and RB1 (1). Twenty (47%) of 43 variants were previously known based on clinical genetic testing. Of the 1167 patients who consented for a germline testing protocol, 1157 (99%) desired to be informed of incidental results. Twenty-three previously unrecognized mutations identified in the research environment were confirmed with an orthogonal CLIA platform. All patients approached decided to proceed with formal genetic counseling; in all cases where formal genetic testing was carried out, the germline variant of concern validated with clinical genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, 2.3% patients had previously unrecognized pathogenic germline mutations in 19 cancer-related genes. Thus, genomic sequencing must be accompanied by a plan for return of germline results, in partnership with genetic counseling.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have a considerably increased risk to develop breast and ovarian cancer. The personalized clinical management of carriers and other at-risk individuals depends on precise knowledge of the cancer risks. In this report, we give an overview of the present literature on empirical cancer risks, and we describe risk prediction models that are currently used for individual risk assessment in clinical practice. Cancer risks show large variability between studies. Breast cancer risks are at 40-87% for BRCA1 mutation carriers and 18-88% for BRCA2 mutation carriers. For ovarian cancer, the risk estimates are in the range of 22-65% for BRCA1 and 10-35% for BRCA2. The contralateral breast cancer risk is high (10-year risk after first cancer 27% for BRCA1 and 19% for BRCA2). Risk prediction models have been proposed to provide more individualized risk prediction, using additional knowledge on family history, mode of inheritance of major genes, and other genetic and non-genetic risk factors. User-friendly software tools have been developed that serve as basis for decision-making in family counseling units. In conclusion, further assessment of cancer risks and model validation is needed, ideally based on prospective cohort studies. To obtain such data, clinical management of carriers and other at-risk individuals should always be accompanied by standardized scientific documentation.