Evaluating the acceptability, usability, and feasibility of a clinic-based genetic testing risk assessment intervention in Black women with breast cancer.

Abstract

436 Background: Black women diagnosed with breast cancer utilize genetic counseling and testing services less often than White women despite these services having the potential to personalize medical management of breast cancer and identify family members for cascade testing. Lower rates of provider recommendations may be a driver of these disparities, as uptake does not appear to differ by race. The objective of this study was to evaluate the acceptability, usability, and feasibility of a clinic-based genetic risk assessment to facilitate provider recommendations for genetic testing in Black women diagnosed with breast cancer. Methods: A clinic-embedded, race-concordant, trained navigator administered a 15-minute screening tool based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network genetic testing criteria to English-speaking, Black women ≥18 and newly diagnosed with breast cancer. A copy of the results were given to the treating surgeon to facilitate consideration of genetic testing for the patient. However, the decision to recommend genetic testing was left to discretion of the surgeon. After enrollment completion, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a subsample of patients and surgeons who participated in the intervention to elicit their perspectives and experiences. We also used medical record data to determine if surgeons recommended genetic testing to participating patients, and if so, whether they completed it. Results: Between January 2022 and April 2023, 37 patients with a median age of 56.9 years (IQR 15.0-37.5) consented to participate. Surgeons recommended genetic testing to 25/37 patients and 5/37 additional patients were referred outside of this intervention (81.1% total). 12/37 patients (including those who were and were not recommended genetic testing) and 4/4 surgeons completed follow-up interviews. For clinician usability and acceptability, surgeons reported little to no negative impact on their clinic flow. While some found the intervention to be a helpful reminder, others shared it made no discernible impact on their practice, as they reported already incorporating a similar system into their clinic flow. For patient usability and acceptability, some patients found questions on the screening tool difficult to answer and expressed feeling overwhelmed at the time it was administered but the navigator was comforting, reassuring, and informative. Patients, surgeons, and the navigator recommended administering the screening tool prior to the initial appointment with the surgeon and ensuring follow up with patients regarding results. Conclusions: Participating patients and surgeons found this intervention to be feasible and acceptable. Usability challenges warrant further exploration into the logistics of the intervention, including timing, delivery, and medium.