scholarly journals Exploring Predictors of Genetic Counseling and Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Findings from the 2015 U.S. National Health Interview Survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlin G. Allen ◽  
Megan Roberts ◽  
Yue Guan

Despite efforts to increase the availability of clinical genetic testing and counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian (HBOC)-related cancers, these services remain underutilized in clinical settings. There have been few efforts to understand the public’s use of cancer genetic services, particularly for HBOC-related cancers. This analysis is based on data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a U.S.-based nationwide probability sample, to better understand the public’s use of HBOC-related clinical cancer genetic services. Bivariate analyses were used to compute percentages and examine the associations of familial cancer risk for three genetic services outcomes (ever had genetic counseling for cancer risk, ever discussed genetic testing for cancer risk with a provider, and ever had genetic testing for cancer risk). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of familial cancer risk and other demographic and health variables with genetic services. Most women (87.67%) in this study were at low risk based on self-reported family history of breast and ovarian cancer, 10.65% were at medium risk, and 1.68% were at high risk. Overall, very small numbers of individuals had ever had genetic counseling (2.78%), discussed genetic testing with their physician (4.55%) or had genetic testing (1.64%). Across all genetic services outcomes, individuals who were at higher familial risk were more likely to have had genetic counseling than those at lower risk (high risk: aOR = 5.869, 95% CI = 2.911–11.835; medium risk: aOR = 4.121, 95% CI = 2.934–5.789), discussed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 5.133, 95% CI = 2.699–9.764; medium risk: aOR = 3.649, 95% CI = 2.696–4.938), and completed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 8.531, 95% CI = 3.666–19.851; medium risk aOR = 3.057, 95% CI = 1.835–5.094). Those who perceived themselves as being more likely to develop cancer than the average woman were more likely to engage in genetic counseling (aOR = 1.916, 95% CI = 1.334–2.752), discuss genetic testing (aOR = 3.314, 95% CI = 2.463–4.459) or have had genetic testing (aOR = 1.947, 95% CI = 1.13–3.54). Personal cancer history was also a significant predictor of likelihood to have engaged in genetic services. Our findings highlight: (1) potential under-utilization of cancer genetic services among high risk populations in the U.S. and (2) differences in genetic services use based on individual’s characteristics such as self-reported familial risk, personal history, and beliefs about risk of cancer. These results align with other studies which have noted that awareness and use of genetic services are low in the general population and likely not reaching individuals who could benefit most from screening for inherited cancers. Efforts to promote public awareness of familial cancer risk may lead to better uptake of cancer genetic services.

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 1724-1736 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Offit ◽  
K Brown

PURPOSE Because a family history of cancer constitutes an important risk factor, estimation and communication of cancer risk can facilitate efforts toward early detection and prevention. This review provides a resource for health professionals called to draw upon a multidisciplinary literature to provide quantitative risk estimates to families with cancer. DESIGN Descriptive population-derived, epidemiologic, genetic, genetic epidemiologic, and molecular studies are critically reviewed in the context of cancer genetic counseling. RESULTS Data are presented that document the increased lifetime relative risk to relatives of individuals with cancers of the breast, ovary, colon, prostate, or other sites. In general, risk ratios are poorly suited for clinical counseling. Age-specific absolute risks are presented for first-degree relatives of individuals affected by cancers of the breast, ovary, and colon. The derivation of Mendelian and Bayesian risk estimates in the setting of well-defined cancer family syndromes, and the growing role of DNA testing in more accurately assessing these risks, are discussed. Such carrier testing requires careful psychologic and ethical considerations. CONCLUSION Multidisciplinary cancer genetic counseling is an emerging resource available to physicians who care for families with common adult malignancies.


2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 314-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon J. Rolnick ◽  
Alanna K. Rahm ◽  
Jody M. Jackson ◽  
Larissa Nekhlyudov ◽  
Katrina A. B. Goddard ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vida Henderson ◽  
Jessica Madrigal ◽  
Le’Chaun Kendall ◽  
Pooja Parekh ◽  
Jennifer Newsome ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Despite the benefits of genetic counseling (GC) and testing, uptake of cancer genetic services is generally low and African American (AA) women are substantially less likely to receive genetic services than non-Hispanic White women. Our team developed a culturally sensitive, narrative decision aid video to promote uptake of GC among AA women at risk for a hereditary breast cancer syndrome. We report here a pilot study to demonstrate feasibility and acceptability of incorporating this intervention in conjunction with population-based cancer risk assessment in a clinical setting with medically underserved AA women. Methods AA women recommended for GC based on cancer genetic risk assessment performed in a mammography center were recruited at the time of the mammogram. A prospective, pre-post survey study design, guided by theoretical constructs, was used to evaluate baseline and immediate post-intervention psychosocial factors, including intention to participate in GC and intervention satisfaction. Results Pilot recruitment goals were met (n=30). Pre-intervention, 50% of participants indicated that they were extremely likely to make a GC appointment, compared with 70% post-intervention (p=0.0001). After watching the intervention, 50% of participants indicated that the video changed their mind regarding GC. Conclusions This study demonstrated cultural acceptability of a decision aid intervention designed to motivate AA women with hereditary breast cancer risk to attend a GC appointment. Our study showed that intention may be a specific and key construct to target in interventions designed to support decision-making about genetic services. Study results informed the design of a subsequent large scale, randomized implementation study.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-123
Author(s):  
Ilana Miller ◽  
Samantha Greenberg ◽  
Beverly M. Yashar ◽  
Monica L. Marvin

2020 ◽  
pp. jmedgenet-2020-107418
Author(s):  
Maia Leigh Norman ◽  
Janet Malcolmson ◽  
Susan Randall Armel ◽  
Brittany Gillies ◽  
Brian Ou ◽  
...  

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid adoption of virtual clinic processes and healthcare delivery. Herein, we examine the impact of virtualising genetics services at Canada’s largest cancer centre. A retrospective review was conducted to evaluate relevant metrics during the 12 weeks prior to and during virtual care, including referral and clinic volumes, patient wait times and genetic testing uptake. The number of appointments and new patients seen were maintained during virtual care. Likewise, there was a significant increase in the number of patients offered testing during virtual care who did not provide a blood sample (176/180 (97.7%) vs 180/243 (74.1%); p<0.001), and a longer median time from the date of pretest genetic counselling to the date a sample was given (0 vs 11 days; p<0.001). Referral volumes significantly decreased during virtual care (35 vs 22; p<0.001), which was accompanied by a decreased median wait time for first appointment (55 days vs 30 days; p<0.001). The rapid virtualisation of cancer genetic services allowed the genetics clinic to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic without compromising clinical volumes or access to genetic testing. There was a decrease in referral volumes and uptake of genetic testing, which may be attributable to pandemic-related clinical restrictions.


Breast Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Karin Kast ◽  
Julia Häfner ◽  
Evelin Schröck ◽  
Arne Jahn ◽  
Carmen Werner ◽  
...  

<b><i>Background:</i></b> In clinical routine, not every patient who is offered genetic counselling and diagnostics in order to investigate a familial cancer risk predisposition opts for it. Little is known about acceptance of counselling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in Germany. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> All primary breast cancer cases and patients with DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) treated at the University Hospital of Dresden between 2016 and 2019 were included. The number of tumor board recommendations for genetic counselling on the basis of the GC-HBOC risk criteria was recorded. Acceptance was analyzed by number of cases with counselling in the GC-HBOC-Center Dresden. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of 996 primary breast cancer and DCIS cases, 262 (26.3%) were eligible for genetic counselling. Recommendation for genetic counselling was accepted by 64.1% (168/262). Of these 90.5% (152/168) opted for molecular genetic analysis. The acceptance rate for counselling increased between 2016 and 2019 from 58.3 to 72.6%. Altogether, 20.4% (31/152) patients were found to carry a pathogenic variant in the breast cancer genes <i>BRCA1</i> or <i>BRCA2</i>. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Acceptance of recommendation is increasing as clinical consequences augment. Optimization in providing information about hereditary cancer risk and in accessibility of counselling and testing is required to further improve acceptance of recommendation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (suppl_6) ◽  
pp. vi57-vi57
Author(s):  
Sarah Hummel ◽  
Wendy Kohlmann ◽  
Thomas Kollmeyer ◽  
Robert Jenkins ◽  
Joshua Sonnen ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 267-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Middlecamp Kodl ◽  
Judith W. Lee ◽  
Alicia K. Matthews ◽  
Shelly A. Cummings ◽  
Olufunmilayo I. Olopade

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document