Public Health Genomics

Results from the Delivery of a Community Health Worker Training to Advance Competencies in Cancer Genomics

Introduction: Less than half of eligible Black women are assessed for genetic risk and only 28% engage in recommended HBOC risk-reducing interventions. CHWs are trusted members of the community that work as a liaison between health systems and the community to improve access to services and support cancer prevention efforts, though they are an overlooked to support genetic risk assessment. To address the need and training gaps for CHWs we developed and assessed an online training program called KEEP IT (Keeping Each other Engaged Program via IT). Methods: The curriculum and modules were developed through engaging a panel of experts in a three-round Delphi process. The process led to creation of 10 modules for the training. Recruitment focused on CHWs who worked in clinical settings or groups providing outreach or health services to Black women. Measures of the training were guided by the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the course and its effectiveness. Results: 46 individuals expressed interest in the training after recruitment. 38 individuals were eligible for the training and 26 completed the course. We found improvements in knowledge and genomics competencies immediately post-course, but the majority of these improvements were not sustained at three-months follow up. The training was highly rated for its relevance to CHW work and overall delivery. Top rated sessions included Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Family History and Family History Collection. On average, participants reported discussing HBOC with 17 individuals at three-months follow-up. Discussion: Championing a diverse cancer and genomics workforce can help address the goals of the National Cancer Plan to improve early detection and health equity. Through this training, CHWs gained critical cancer and genomics knowledge that was then applied to their primary roles.

Illustrating Cancer Risk: Patient Risk Communication Preferences and Interest regarding a Novel <b><i>BRCA1/2</i></b> Genetic Risk Modifier Test

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Genetic risk modifier testing (GRMT), an emerging form of genetic testing based on common single nucleotide polymorphisms and polygenic risk scores, has the potential to refine estimates of <i>BRCA1/2</i> mutation carriers’ breast cancer risks. However, for women to benefit from GRMT, effective approaches for communicating this novel risk information are needed. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> To evaluate patient preferences regarding risk communication materials for GRMT. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We developed four separate presentations (panel of genes, icon array, verbal risk estimate, graphical risk estimate) of hypothetical GRMT results, each using varying risk communication strategies to convey different information elements including number of risk modifier variants present, variant prevalence among <i>BRCA1/2</i> carriers, and implications and uncertainties of test results for cancer risk. Thirty <i>BRCA1/2</i> carriers evaluated these materials (randomized to low, moderate, or high breast cancer risk versions). Qualitative and quantitative data were obtained through in-person interviews. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Across risk versions, participants preferred the presentation of the graphical risk estimate, often in combination with the verbal risk estimate. Interest in GRMT was high; 76.7% of participants wanted their own GRMT. Participants valued the potential for GRMT to clarify their cancer susceptibility and provide actionable information. Many (65.5%) anticipated that GRMT would make risk management decisions easier. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Women with <i>BRCA1/2</i> mutations could be highly receptive to GRMT, and the minimal amount of necessary information to be included in result risk communication materials includes graphical and verbal estimates of future cancer risk. Findings will inform clinical translation of GRMT in a manner consistent with patients’ preferences.

Streamlined Genetic Education and Cascade Testing in Men from Hereditary Breast Ovarian Cancer Families: A Randomized Trial

Introduction: When a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation is identified in a family, cascade genetic testing of family members is recommended since the results may inform screening or treatment decisions in men and women. However, rates of cascade testing are low, and men are considerably less likely than women to pursue cascade testing. To facilitate cascade testing in men, we designed a Web-based genetic education tool that addressed barriers to cascade testing, was individually tailored, delivered proactively, and could be used in lieu of pretest genetic counseling to streamline the cascade testing process. Methods: We randomized 63 untested men from hereditary cancer families to Web-based genetic education (WGE) versus enhanced usual care (EUC). WGE participants were provided access to a genetic education website after which they could accept or decline genetic testing or opt for pretest genetic counseling. EUC participants received an informational brochure and a letter informing them of their eligibility for genetic testing and recommending they schedule genetic counseling. The primary outcome was the uptake of genetic testing. Results: Men in the WGE group were more likely to complete genetic counseling and/or genetic testing (43% vs. 12.1%; χ2 [n = 63, df = 1] = 7.77, p = 0.005). WGE participants were also more likely to complete genetic testing compared to men in the EUC group (30% vs. 9.1%; χ2 [n = 63, df = 1] = 4.46, p = 0.03). Conclusion: This preliminary trial suggests that a streamlined approach to genetic testing using proactively delivered genetic education may reduce barriers to cascade testing for at-risk men, leading to increased uptake. These results should be interpreted cautiously given the select sample and high rate of non-response.

Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics Associated with Genetic Testing among Cancer Survivors: Evidence from Three Cancer Registries

Introduction: Genetic tests, including germline and tumor (somatic) testing, can optimize the clinical care and outcomes for cancer patients and their family members. However, evidence on cancer patients’ use of genetic testing and discussions about it with healthcare providers is limited. Methods: Study participants included cancer survivors aged 18 or older, drawn from the 2021 Health Information and National Trends Survey (HINTS)-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) linked database, which comprises three US cancer registries: Iowa, New Mexico, and the Greater Bay Area. Sociodemographic factors (e.g., age, sex, income, education) at the time of the survey and clinical characteristics (e.g., cancer site, stage) at the time of diagnosis were compared based on self-reported genetic testing status and provider discussions, using survey design-adjusted analysis. Results: The weighted study sample comprised 415,978 cancer survivors with a mean age of 70.5 years at the time of the survey. Overall, 17.0% reported having germline testing, 8.5% having tumor testing, and 8.6% discussing tumor testing with their healthcare providers. Higher proportions of germline genetic testing were observed among survivors under age 65 at the time of the survey, females, holding college degrees, and with private insurance coverage compared to their respective counterparts – males, aged 65 or above when surveyed, with lower educational attainment, and with public insurance or uninsured. The proportion of those who reported tumor testing was greater for those diagnosed in recent years (2015–2017 vs. before 2002). Regarding clinical characteristics, survivors with ovarian and breast cancers had a 7.0–36.4% higher prevalence of both testing compared to those with other cancer types lacking germline indication. More cancer survivors diagnosed at distant stages (vs. regional) or between 2015 and 2017 (vs. 2003–2010) reported having provider discussions about tumor testing. Conclusion: Findings showed that the highest reports of germline testing were among young female cancer survivors and those with higher education and private insurance. Survivors diagnosed in recent years or with advanced-stage disease were more likely to report discussing tumor testing with providers. Further research is warranted to better understand the barriers and educational needs of cancer patients, caregivers, and providers to optimize genetic testing strategies.

“Should I Let Them Know I Have This?”: Multifaceted Genetic Discrimination and Limited Awareness of Legal Protections among Individuals with Hereditary Cancer Syndromes

Introduction: Hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS), such as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome (LS), represent approximately 10% of all cancers. Along with medical burdens associated with the genetic risk of developing cancer, many individuals face stigma and discrimination. Genetic discrimination refers to negative treatment, unfair profiling, or harm based on genetic characteristics, manifesting as “felt” stigma (ostracization without discriminatory acts) or “enacted” stigma (experiencing discriminatory acts). This study aimed to describe concerns and experiences of genetic discrimination faced by individuals with HCS. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with individuals with molecularly confirmed HCS residing in Ontario, British Columbia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Purposive sampling was applied to obtain a diverse sample across demographic characteristics. Study procedures were informed by interpretive description; data were thematically analyzed using constant comparison. Results: Seventy-three participants were interviewed (39 HBOC, 34 LS; 51 females, 21 males, 1 gender-diverse; aged 25–80). Participants described multifaceted forms of genetic discrimination across healthcare, insurance, employment, and family/social settings. Participants valued the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act’s protective intent but demonstrated limited knowledge of its existence and provisions. Limited knowledge, coupled with policy constraints in non-legislative settings and third-party use of proxy genetic information, hindered participants’ ability to whistleblow or seek recourse. Conclusion: Our results illuminate a disconnection between the intended protective effects of genetic nondiscrimination legislation and ongoing genetic discrimination faced by individuals with hereditary conditions. To better support these individuals, this study encourages public outreach and knowledge translation efforts to increase awareness of nondiscrimination legal protections.

Your Family Connects: A Theory-Based Intervention to Encourage Communication about Possible Inherited Cancer Risk among Ovarian Cancer Survivors and Close Relatives

Introduction: Encouraging family communication about possible genetic risk has become among the most important avenues for achieving the full potential of genomic discovery for primary and secondary prevention. Yet, effective family-wide risk communication (i.e., conveying genetic risk status and its meaning for other family members) remains a critical gap in the field. We aim to describe the iterative process of developing a scalable population-based communication outreach intervention, Your Family Connects, to reach ovarian cancer survivors and close relatives to communicate the potential for inherited risk and to consider genetic counseling. Methods: Relational-level theories (e.g., interdependence theory) suggest that interventions to promote family cancer risk communication will be most effective if they consider the qualities of specific relationships and activate motives to preserve the relationship. Informed by these theories, we collaborated with 14 citizen scientists (survivors of ovarian cancer or relatives) and collected 261 surveys and 39 structured interviews over 12 weeks of citizen science activities in 2020. Results: The citizen science findings and consideration of relational-level theories informed the content and implementation of Your Family Connects (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.yourfamilyconnects.org/" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">www.yourfamilyconnects.org</ext-link>). CS results showed survivors favor personal contact with close relatives, but relatives were open to alternative contact methods, such as through health professionals. Recognizing the need for varied approaches based on relationship dynamics, we implemented a relative contact menu to enable survivors identify at-risk relatives and provide multiple contact options (i.e., survivor contact, health professional contact, and delayed contact). In line with relational autonomy principles, we included pros and cons for each option, assisting survivors in choosing suitable contact methods for each relative. Discussion: Our developed intervention represents a novel application of relational-level theories and partnership with citizen scientists to expand genetic services reach to increase the likelihood for fair distribution of cancer genomic advances. The Your Family Connects intervention as part of a randomized trial in collaboration with the Georgia Cancer Registry compared with standard outreach.

Factors Influencing Discussion of Cancer Genetic Testing with Health-Care Providers in a Population-Based Survey

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Discussion of cancer genetic testing with health-care providers (HCPs) is necessary to undergo testing to inform cancer risk assessment and prevention. Given the rapid evolution in genetic testing practice in oncology, we describe the current landscape of population-level cancer genetic testing behaviors. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A questionnaire including items regarding discussion of cancer genetic testing with HCPs was administered to a nonprobability sample (<i>N</i> = 2,029) of the Texas population. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Overall, 11% of respondents discussed cancer genetic testing with HCPs. In multivariable analysis, discussion was significantly related to having a personal history of breast/ovarian/colon cancer (OR = 11.57, 95% CI = 5.34–25.03), personal history of other cancer (OR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.69–5.97), and health information-seeking behaviors (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.12–2.66). Surprisingly, respondents who believed that inherited predispositions in addition to other modifiable risk factors cause cancer were less likely to discuss genetic testing compared to those who did not believe that inherited cancer predispositions cause cancer (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.36–0.79). <b><i>Discussion:</i></b> The high discussion rate may be attributed to increased public awareness of genetic testing and adoption of more inclusive clinical genetic testing guidelines. The findings suggest that efforts to increase public awareness of the utility of genetic testing on personalized cancer risk assessment and cancer prevention are needed.