Hereditary Cancer Risk Counseling Research Articles

Abstract C125: Improving access to genetic counseling and testing for underserved populations through telehealth

Abstract Introduction: A lack of access to genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk in rural and underserved areas is well-documented and can exacerbate disparities in cancer risk reduction and early detection. Telehealth has the potential to bridge this gap, providing remote access to specialized care. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated telehealth availability, allowing estimation of the causal effects of shifting to a model of virtual care delivery for genetic counseling services. Methods: The Stanford Cancer Genetic Counseling Clinic provided solely in-person care at two clinical sites (Palo Alto and San Jose, CA) until March 2020, and solely virtual care from April 2020 onward. We performed a regression discontinuity design, allowing outcomes comparison before and after the threshold of early 2020, to evaluate the impact of telehealth genetic counseling on access to care for patients living in areas of higher deprivation. The assignment variable (the exposure measured before versus after the threshold) was the three-month period during which the patients were seen, with the March-May 2020 quarter excluded because of disruption of care during the early COVID-19 pandemic. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients whose primary residence zip code had a state area deprivation index of at least 4. Secondary endpoints included driving distance to the primary clinic location in Palo Alto, CA, insurance type, race/ethnicity, and primary language. Results: The study included N=5,957 patients seen in the Stanford Cancer Genetics Program between January 2017 and February 2020, and N=9,469 patients seen between June 2020 and April 2024. The regression discontinuity analysis revealed a significant discontinuity at the threshold for telehealth in access for patients living in areas of higher deprivation, who accounted for 22% of patients seen just prior to telehealth implementation and 27% just after telehealth implementation, a proportional increase of 21% (p=0.006). Mean driving distance to Palo Alto, CA also increased, from 49 minutes just prior to the threshold to 56 minutes just after (p=0.003). There were no significant differences in insurance type, race/ethnicity, or primary language across the threshold. Conclusion: The implementation of telehealth services at the Stanford Cancer Genetic Counseling Clinic significantly improved access to genetic counseling for patients from areas with higher deprivation, as evidenced by a 21% increase in the proportion of such patients among those seen. These results quantify the effectiveness of telehealth in reducing geographical and socioeconomic barriers to specialized genetic counseling and testing services. Citation Format: Jennifer L. Caswell-Jin, Hao Tang, Mina Satoyoshi, Kerry Kingham, Allison W. Kurian. Improving access to genetic counseling and testing for underserved populations through telehealth [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl):Abstract nr C125.

Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk.

As demand for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) continues to increase, so does the sense of urgency to scale up efforts to triage patients, facilitate informed consent, and order genetic testing for cancer risk. The National Society of Genetic Counselors outlines the elements of informed consent that should be addressed in a GCRA session. While this practice resource aims to improve health equity, research on how well the elements of informed consent are implemented in practice is lacking. This retrospective and prospective mixed-methods study assessed how adequately the elements of informed consent are addressed during pre-test GCRA among 307 community clinicians (CC) and 129 cancer genetic counselors (GC), and barriers they face to addressing these elements. Results revealed that more than 90% of both cohorts consistently addressed components of at least 5 of the 10 elements of informed consent during a pre-test consultation. Technical aspects and accuracy of the test and utilization of test results were the most similarly addressed elements. Notably, GCs more often review the purpose of the test and who to test, general information about the gene(s), and economic considerations whereas CCs more often review alternatives to testing. Both cohorts reported psychosocial aspects of the informed consent process as the least adequately addressed element. Time constraints and patient-related concerns were most often cited by both cohorts as barriers to optimal facilitation of informed consent. Additional barriers reported by CCs included provider lack of awareness, experience, or education, and availability of resources and institutional support. Findings from this study may contribute to the development of alternative delivery models that incorporate supplementary educational tools to enhance patient understanding about the utility of genetic testing, while helping to mitigate the barrier of time constraints. Equally important is the use of this information to develop continuing education tools for providers.

Telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk: Patient predictors of differential outcomes

Purpose Telegenetics has become the predominant mode of cancer genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify potential patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic genetic counseling. Methods We analyzed post-counseling (pre-result disclosure) follow-up data from a randomized noninferiority trial of a telephone genetic counseling versus usual care genetic counseling. Among 669 randomized participants, 600 completed pre-test counseling and 568 completed a 2-week follow-up assessment before receiving test results. In this analysis, we focused on genetic counseling outcomes (knowledge, decisional conflict, and distress). In multivariate models controlling for bivariate predictors of these outcomes, we tested our a priori hypotheses that pre-counseling numeracy, perceived stress, and race/ethnicity would moderate the outcomes of telephone genetic counseling versus usual care. Results Only numeracy significantly moderated associations between mode of genetic counseling and outcomes. Higher numeracy was associated with higher post-counseling knowledge following telephone genetic counseling (p < 0.001), but not usual care (p = 0.450). Higher numeracy was also associated with lower distress following telephone genetic counseling (p = 0.009) but not usual care (p = 0.16). Neither perceived stress nor race/ethnicity exhibited differential impacts on telephone genetic counseling versus usual care (ps > 0.20). Conclusion Although high numeracy was associated with higher levels of knowledge following telegenetic counseling, we did not identify any clinically significant patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic counseling. These results lend further confidence to the broad use of telegenetics.

A self-administered family history questionnaire improves identification of women who warrant referral to genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk

ObjectivesThis study was undertaken to assess a self-administered family history questionnaire in order to better identify women within a gynecologic oncology practice for referral to genetic counseling services. MethodsReturning patients at an outpatient gynecologic oncology clinic completed a self-administered family health history questionnaire and a detailed telephone interview. A genetic counselor separately assessed blinded information garnered from the questionnaire, structured genetic interview, and electronic medical records to determine whether these data warranted referral to genetic counseling based on established criteria. The structured genetic interview was considered the gold standard to which the questionnaire and medical record information were compared. ResultsOf the 45 total participants in the study, 26 (58%) were identified from the structured genetic interview as meeting criteria for referral to genetic counseling. The questionnaire identified 21 (81%) of these 26 referrals, while the medical record identified 13 (50%) of these 26 referrals. This led to a 62% increase in referral capture by the questionnaire. The median time to complete the questionnaire was 17min (range 5–57min). Thirty-four participants (75.6%) had more family members with cancer identified on the questionnaire compared to the electronic medical record. The questionnaire identified fewer family members with cancer in the five cases that were missed for appropriate referral. ConclusionsCurrent standard clinical practices are insufficient at identifying patients in need of referral to genetic counseling. A self-administered questionnaire improves recognition of candidates for genetic counseling in a gynecologic oncology practice.

Practical Aspects of Delivering Hereditary Cancer Risk Counseling

The primary element involved in the practical delivery of hereditary cancer risk counseling is the development of a cancer genetics service. This service should involve a multidisciplinary core of specialists, aim to identify at-risk individuals and their families, and provide comprehensive genetic counseling with the option of genetic testing. This article examines the development of a cancer genetics service beginning with the fundamentals of patient ascertainment, location, staffing, and billing. It also reviews the elements involved in the provision of genetic counseling services, including formalized risk assessment and risk communication. Finally, we review novel modes of delivery of genetic counseling including the use of telephone counseling and telemedicine as a means of expanding the scope of this service and extending its reach to individuals who might otherwise not have access to a risk assessment clinic. Overall, this presentation can serve as a resource for identifying the practical aspects involved in the delivery of hereditary cancer risk counseling and their subsequent integration into the workings of a proficient cancer genetics service able to identify and serve at-risk patients and their family members.