Inherited Cancer Risk Research Articles

Inherited germline variants in urothelial cancer: A multicenter whole-exome sequencing analysis.

451 Background: Outside of Lynch syndrome, few genetic factors have been associated with urothelial cancer (UC). This project seeks to describe the frequency of germline variants in a multi-center UC cohort. Methods: Patients diagnosed with UC from 1980 to 2019 and consented to the Total Cancer Care protocol by members of the Oncology Research Information Exchange Network (ORIEN) were included in the study. The ORIEN program includes a convenience sample of cases with both germline and tumor samples available, though this analysis was germline only. Whole exome sequencing data were analyzed using a GATK best practices for germline variant analysis. A series of quality control (allele frequency > = 0.3, read depth > = 20, genotype quality > = 20), annotation, functional impact (loss of function/splicing), and region (cancer predisposition genes/pathways) filters were applied to identify variants of significant consequence. Results: 348 exomes were evaluated. This identified 60 variants classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) and 17 novel, high impact variants in genes associated with high, moderate, or recessively inherited cancer risk in 77 individuals (22.1%). 15 (4.5%) had P/LP variants in genes associated with a high or moderate cancer risk, and 10 (3%) of these variants were considered to be clinically actionable with associated with cancer screening, risk reduction or treatment recommendations. The high/moderate risk genes with P/LP variants included CHEK2 (n = 5), FANCM (n = 4), MSH6 (n = 2) and single cases of MSH2, BRCA2, ERCC3, and BRIP1. The average age of diagnosis in those with and without a high/moderate risk P/LP variant was 67.6 (57-80 yrs) and 68.9 (45-91 yrs). Family history of cancer was reported for 73% of those with a germline LP/PV and 60% of those without, but this trend was not significant (p =.44). Conclusions: Individuals with UC have a high frequency of germline variants that warrant further study for association with cancer risk. A smaller, but significant portion also carry germline variants that may be clinically relevant to them and/or family members. Currently UC is not included in genetic testing criteria. This study adds to the growing body of research indicating that diverse types of cancer patients harbor germline variants. Strategies for expanding testing should be considered.

Genetic Literacy and Communication of Genetic Information in Families Concerned with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Cross-Study Comparison in Two Countries and within a Timeframe of More Than 10 Years

Simple SummaryThis cross-study comparison uses data collected over 10 years from families living in the US and in Switzerland in order to compare genetic literacy between individuals who had genetic counselling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) and one or more of their relatives who did not, and examines factors influencing genetic literacy both at the individual and at the family level. The study identifies genetic risk factors and signs of HBOC that remain unclear, even to individuals who had genetic consultation, and highlights the gaps in the dissemination of genetic information. Sensitivity analysis examines the dissemination of genetic information from the individual who had counselling to relatives within the same family that did not.Examining genetic literacy in families concerned with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) helps understand how genetic information is passed on from individuals who had genetic counseling to their at-risk relatives. This cross-study comparison explored genetic literacy both at the individual and the family level using data collected from three sequential studies conducted in the U.S. and Switzerland over ≥10 years. Participants were primarily females, at-risk or confirmed carriers of HBOC-associated pathogenic variants, who had genetic counselling, and ≥1 of their relatives who did not. Fifteen items assessed genetic literacy. Among 1933 individuals from 518 families, 38.5% had genetic counselling and 61.5% did not. Although genetic literacy was higher among participants who had counselling, some risk factors were poorly understood. At the individual level, genetic literacy was associated with having counselling, ≤5 years ago, higher education, and family history of cancer. At the family level, genetic literacy was associated with having counselling, higher education, and a cancer diagnosis. The findings suggest that specific genetic information should be emphasized during consultations, and that at-risk relatives feel less informed about inherited cancer risk, even if information is shared within families. There is a need to increase access to genetic information among at-risk individuals.

Electronic Family History Screening Tool for Detection of Inherited Cancer Risk: A Prospective Pilot Study.

Family history screening to identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary cancers could be a powerful strategy to prevent cancer but is used inconsistently in primary care. The objective was to improve identification of women with at-risk family histories using a point-of-care family history screening tool administered on an electronic tablet device during well-woman appointments. A total of 288 women were invited to participate and 136 women (47.2%) completed the electronic family history screening tool. Significantly more women were identified and referred to the genetics department with the electronic family history screening tool than the standard-of-care paper questionnaire (11.8% versus 0.8%, P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of referred women who were evaluated by the genetic counselors, and no pathogenic variants were found with either family history screening method. Implementing innovative self-reporting tools may improve inherited cancer risk detection.

Adopting Consensus Terms for Testing in Precision Medicine.

PURPOSEDespite the well-understood benefits of biomarker and genetic testing in precision medicine, uptake remains low, particularly for patients with low socioeconomic status and minority ethnic backgrounds. Patients report having limited familiarity with testing terminology and may not be able to accurately explain testing's role in treatment decisions. Patient confusion and lack of understanding is exacerbated by a multiplicity of overlapping terms used in communicating about testing. A LUNGevity Foundation–led working group composed of five professional societies, 23 patient advocacy groups, and 19 industry members assessed and recommended specific terms for communicating with patients on testing for tumor characteristics and germline mutations.METHODSMembers completed a precision oncology testing framework analysis (biomarkers, germline variants, testing modalities, biospecimen, and commonly used testing terms) for nine solid tumors and blood cancers. The evaluation was segmented into terms that distinguish between somatic and germline testing. Additional data were captured in a comprehensive survey (1,650 respondents) led by FORCE (Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered) on patient preferences on germline testing terms.RESULTSThirty-three terms were noted in patient education related to biomarker, genetic, and genomic testing. Biomarker testing was selected as the preferred term for testing for somatic (acquired) alterations and other biomarkers. Genetic testing for an inherited mutation and genetic testing for inherited cancer risk were selected as the preferred terms for testing for germline variants.CONCLUSIONDemocratizing comprehension about precision oncology testing through intentional use of plain language and common umbrella terminology by oncology health care providers and others in the oncology ecosystem may help improve understanding and communication, and facilitate shared decision making about the role of appropriate testing in treatment decisions and other aspects of oncology care.

649Personal history of keratinocyte carcinoma is a marker of inherited cancer risk: Mendelian randomization analyses

Abstract Background A personal history of keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) has been reported as a risk factor for developing subsequent primary cutaneous and non-cutaneous malignancies. However most evidence to date stems from observational studies which are prone to bias, confounding and reverse causation. Our aim was to examine this association using different Mendelian randomization (MR) approaches. Methods We performed a one-sample MR analysis using individual-level data from the UK Biobank (n = 394,306). This analysis was then validated in an independent dataset in the QSkin cohort (n = 16,896). Using 64 independent genetic variants known to be associated with KC, we generated a polygenic risk score (PRS) for each participant in the UK Biobank and the QSkin cohort. We then performed two-sample MR analyses using genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics. We tested the association between genetically predicted KC and risk of subsequent cancer using logistic regression. Results Results from one-sample MR analyses in the UK Biobank indicated that a personal history of KC was significantly associated with cancer overall (excluding melanoma) (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.10-1.20, per doubling the prevalence of KC). The results from the two-sample MR corroborate the findings from the one-sample MR, although the risk estimate was lower (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.03-1.07). Conclusions Our MR analyses suggest that genetically predicted KC is a risk factor for developing subsequent primary malignancies. Key messages A personal history of KC may serve as a proxy marker of inherited cancer risk.

Impact of deleterious variants in other genes beyond BRCA1/2 detected in breast/ovarian and pancreatic cancer patients by NGS-based multi-gene panel testing: looking over the hedge

BackgroundHereditary breast cancer (BC), ovarian cancer (OC), and pancreatic cancer (PC) are the major BRCA-associated tumours. However, some BRCA1/2-wild-type (wt) patients with a strong personal and/or family history of cancer need a further genetic testing through a multi-gene panel containing other high- and moderate-risk susceptibility genes.Patients and methodsOur study was aimed to assess if some BC, OC, or PC patients should be offered multi-gene panel testing, based on well-defined criteria concerning their personal and/or family history of cancer, such as earliness of cancer onset, occurrence of multiple tumours, or presence of at least two or more affected first-degree relatives. For this purpose, 205 out of 915 BC, OC, or PC patients, resulted negative for BRCA1/2 and with significant personal and/or family history of cancer, were genetically tested for germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs/LPVs) in genes different from BRCA1/2.ResultsOur investigation revealed that 31 (15.1%) out of 205 patients harboured germline PVs/LPVs in no-BRCA genes, including PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, MUTYH, MSH2, and RAD51C. Interestingly, in the absence of an analysis conducted through multi-gene panel, a considerable percentage (15.1%) of PVs/LPVs would have been lost.ConclusionsProviding a multi-gene panel testing to BRCA1/2-wt BC/OC/PC patients with a strong personal and/or family history of cancer could significantly increase the detection rates of germline PVs/LPVs in other cancer predisposition genes beyond BRCA1/2. The use of a multi-gene panel testing could improve the inherited cancer risk estimation and clinical management of patients and unaffected family members.

Barriers to family history knowledge and family communication among LGBTQ+ individuals in the context of hereditary cancer risk assessment.

Openness about identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual orientations and gender identities (LGBTQ+) may cause strain on relationships between family members, which could lead to limited knowledge of cancer family history and reduced communication with family members. As a result, members of the LGBTQ+ community may have more difficulty accessing genetic counseling services for inherited cancer risk. We applied a mixed-methods approach to explore potential barriers to knowledge of cancer family history and family communication among participants of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study who self-identified as LGBTQ+. We assessed perceptions of family functioning and communication of genetic test results to family members using survey tools and supplemented these data with 20 in-depth interviews to further assess participant perspectives and experiences. LGBTQ+ participants were more likely to report unhealthy family functioning on the survey tool, and some interviewees endorsed that openness about their LGBTQ+ identity led to strained family relationships and reduced communication about their family history of cancer. Overall, this study identified barriers that may be faced by members of the LGBTQ+ community which could limit their ability to access genetic counseling services for inherited cancer risk.

Germline and somatic mutation profile in Cancer patients revealed by a medium-sized pan-Cancer panel

Gene mutation detection and the resulted precision-medicine therapy is transforming clinical practice. Here, we report the use of a custom-developed, medium-sized, pan-cancer probe panel for the detection of somatic and germline mutations. We used a hybridization capture-based NGS assay for targeted deep sequencing of all exons and selected introns of 181 key cancer driver genes, covering both inherited risks and somatic mutations. We performed paired-variant calling on tumor samples and their matched normal samples. We processed clinical patient samples of formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tumors (FFPE samples) and cell-free peripheral blood (cfDNA samples). We found germline mutations of inherited cancer risk at 9%; and discovered a novel germline mutation in BRCA1. Somatic mutation rate in driver genes is at 73.1%, much higher than previously reported. On recommending precision-medicine therapeutics, we achieved 91.6% for patients with FFPE samples.

Cancer, familial cancer and genomics: A primary care perspective

Advances in genomics have vastly increased our understanding of inherited cancer risk and underlying cancer predisposition syndromes, thereby underpinning a revolution in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer itself. Concern regarding family history of cancer is a common presentation within primary care. This article provides an overview of the role of primary care practitioners in the clinical identification and management of inherited cancer risk within primary care including risk assessment, screening and surveillance. The article will consider management issues, including access to genomic testing and advice on risk-reduction measures. The role of genomics in cancer diagnosis and treatment and future applications will be outlined.

Electronic family history screening tool improves detection of inherited cancer risk: A prospective study

Electronic family history screening tool improves detection of inherited cancer risk: A prospective study

Endometrial biomarkers in premenopausal women with obesity: an at-risk cohort

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for endometrial cancer, but the mechanisms of obesity-related carcinogenesis are not well defined, particularly for premenopausal women. With the continuing obesity epidemic, increases in the incidence of endometrial cancer and a younger age of diagnosis are often attributed to a hyperestrogenic state created by hormone production in adipose tissue, but significant knowledge gaps remain. The balance of estrogen-responsive signals has not been defined in the endometrium of premenopausal women with obesity, where obesity may not create hyperestrogenism in the context of ovaries being the primary source of estrogen production. Obesity is associated with a state of low-grade, chronic inflammation that can promote tumorigenesis, and it is also known that hormonal changes alter the immune microenvironment of the endometrium. However, limited research has been conducted on endometrial immune-response changes in women who have an increased risk for cancer due to obesity. Endometrial estrogen-regulated biomarkers, previously shown to be dysregulated in endometrial cancer, were evaluated in a cohort of premenopausal women to determine if obesity is associated with differences in the biomarker expression levels, which might reflect an altered risk of developing cancer. The expression of a multiplexed panel of immune-related genes was also evaluated for expression differences related to obesity. Premenopausal women with a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m2 (n=97) or a body mass index of ≤25 kg/m2 (n=33) were prospectively enrolled in this cross-sectional study, which included the assessment of serum metabolic markers and a timed endometrial biopsy for pathologic evaluation, hormone-regulated biomarker analysis, and immune response gene expression analysis. Medical and gynecologic histories were obtained. Endometrial gene expression markers were also compared across the body mass index groups in a previous cohort of premenopausal women with an inherited cancer risk (Lynch syndrome). In addition to known systemic metabolic differences, histologically normal endometria from women with obesity showed a decrease in gene expression of progesterone receptor (P=.0027) and the estrogen-induced genes retinaldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (P=.008), insulin-like growth factor 1 (P=.016), and survivin (P=.042) when compared with women without obesity. The endometrial biomarkers insulin-like growth factor 1, survivin, and progesterone receptor remained statistically significant in multivariate linear regression models. In contrast, women with obesity and Lynch syndrome had an increased expression of insulin-like growth factor 1 (P=.017). There were no differences in endometrial proliferation, and limited endometrial immune differences were observed. When comparing premenopausal women with and without obesity in the absence of endometrial pathology or an inherited cancer risk, the expression of the endometrial biomarkers does not reflect a local hyperestrogenic environment, but it instead reflects a decreased cancer risk profile that may be indicative of a compensated state. In describing premenopausal endometrial cancer risk, it may be insufficient to attribute a high-risk state to obesity alone; further studies are warranted to evaluate individualized biomarker profiles for differences in the hormone-responsive signals or immune response. In patients with Lynch syndrome, the endometrial biomarker profile suggests that obesity further increases the risk of developing cancer.

&lt;p&gt;A Novel Mutation in &lt;em&gt;MYH&lt;/em&gt; Gene Associated with Aggressive Colorectal Cancer in a Child: A Case Report and Review of Literature&lt;/p&gt;

Colorectal cancer is a rare pediatric tumor. Pediatric patients with colorectal cancer present with more aggressive tumor biology and at later stages of the disease, higher proportions of signet ring and mucinous histology, and less differentiation. The effective treatment is same as that received by adults. The overall prognosis of pediatric colorectal cancer is generally poor. Genetic mutations have been identified as the cause of inherited cancer risk in some colorectal cancers. Here, we presented a case of a pediatric patient carrying a maternally derived, heterozygous MYH germline mutation (c.934–2A>G,intron), the mutation was not reported in pediatric patients before. Also, the patient carried somatic mutations of proto-oncogene SMAD4 (R361C) and TP53 (Y234H). The patient underwent surgical resection, chemotherapy and targeted therapy, but the prognosis was not good. We also review the literature to summarize clinical features, gene mutations, management, and outcomes of pediatric colorectal cancer patient. Our results suggest that the genetic mutation of MYH together with somatic mutations of proto-oncogene SMAD4 and TP53 may lead to the early onset colorectal cancer of the patient. Although the overall prognosis of pediatric colorectal cancer is generally poor, the pathogenesis may be related to hereditary genetic mutations as was found with the MYH gene mutation in our case. Genetic screening can provide early diagnosis and improve prognosis.

A Web-Based Tool to Automate Portions of Pretest Genetic Counseling for Inherited Cancer.

Increasing demand for genetic testing for inherited cancer risk coupled with a shortage of providers trained in genetics highlight the potential for automated tools embedded in the clinic process to meet this demand. We developed and tested a scalable, easy-to-use, 12-minute web-based educational tool that included standard pretest genetic counseling elements related to panel-based testing for multiple genes associated with cancer risk. The tool was viewed by new patients at the Vanderbilt Hereditary Cancer Clinic before meeting with a board-certified genetics professional. Pre- and post-tool surveys measured knowledge, feeling informed/empowered to decide about testing, attitudinal values about genetic testing, and health literacy. Of the initial 100 participants, 50 were randomized to only have knowledge measured on the post-tool survey to assess for a priming effect. Of 360 patients approached, 305 consented and completed both the pre- and post-tool surveys, with a mean age of 47 years, including 80% female patients and 48% patients with cancer. Survey results showed an increase in knowledge and feeling informed/empowered after viewing the tool (P<.001), but no significant change in attitude (P=.64). Post-tool survey data indicated no difference in median knowledge between low and high health literacy groups (P=.30). No priming effect was present among the initial 100 participants (P=.675). Viewing the educational tool resulted in significant gains in knowledge across health literacy levels, and most individuals felt informed and empowered to decide about genetic testing. These findings indicate that the use of an automated pretest genetic counseling tool may help streamline the delivery of genetic services.

Nonmalignant Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissues as a Source to Study Germline Variants and Cancer Predisposition: A Systematic Review.

Background: Archived formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) specimens from nonmalignant tissues derived from cancer patients are a vast and potentially valuable resource for high-quality genotyping analyses and could have a role in establishing inherited cancer risk. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Scopus databases for all articles that compared genotyping performance of DNA from nonmalignant FFPE tissue with blood DNA derived from cancer patients irrespective of tumor type. Two independent researchers screened the retrieved studies, removed duplicates, excluded irrelevant studies, and extracted genotyping data from the eligible studies. These studies included, but were not limited to, genotyping technique, reported call rate, and concordance. Results: Thirteen studies were reviewed, in which DNA from nonmalignant FFPE tissues derived from cancer patients was successfully purified and genotyped. All these studies used different approaches for genotyping of DNA from nonmalignant FFPE tissues to amplify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and to estimate of loss of heterozygosity. The concordance between genotypes from nonmalignant FFPE tissues and blood derived from cancer patients was observed to be high, whereas the call rate of the tested SNPs was not reported in all included studies. Conclusion: This review illustrates that DNA from nonmalignant FFPE tissues derived from cancer patients can serve as an alternative and reliable source for assessment of germline DNA for various purposes, including assessment of cancer predisposition.

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) study evaluating preferences of Asian adults for inherited cancer risk testing.

e13550 Background: Inherited cancer genetic testing (CGT) is increasingly recommended in a wide range of settings to better evaluate and manage personal and/or family cancer risks. For individuals at risk, identification of monogenic risk factors by inherited CGT allows more appropriate advice, surveillance and targeted prevention. For cancer patients, inherited CGT provides guidance for the selection of targeted therapy treatment options. Little is known about the views of non-Western global communities, which can impact cancer prevention. We designed a DCE study to evaluate four key attributes to better target educational and policy interventions in an urban Asian community. Methods: We recruited healthy adults in the community aged between 21-60 in Singapore. Participants received basic information about cancer and cancer genetic testing, then completed a 16-task DCE survey that examined preferences for four attributes of cancer genetic testing for targeted prevention including: accuracy, waiting time for result, out-of-pocket cost and insurance claims. A conditional logit regression model was used to examine the main effect parameter, assuming all attributes have an independent influence on the participants’ preferences. Results: 93 adults were enrolled (71% female, 29% male). Attributes influencing decision to undergo inherited CGT in decreasing order of concern were accuracy (37%), out-of-pocket costs (22%), insurance claim (21%) and waiting time for result (20%). Increased out-of-pocket cost reduces the likelihood of people to go for testing (coef: -6.579e−04, p &lt; 0.01). The impact of financial cost is less important for participants with increased monthly household income (coef: 1.791e−04, p &lt; 0.01). Conclusions: With inherited cancer genetic testing becoming more common and relevant in terms of personal and/or family risk managements and guiding treatment options, this DCE study is helpful to guide clinicians tailor of individualized genetic counseling for non-Western communities, who may have different concerns from Western populations. Targeted policy intervention and education on these concerns may lead to greater accessibility for inherited CGT.

Using consistent terms in precision medicine to eliminate patient confusion.

e24164 Background: Biomarker testing has advanced precision medicine in cancer. However, not all eligible patients benefit from biomarker-driven therapies due to suboptimal testing rates. A working group of 20 patient advocacy groups representing solid/hematologic malignancies, three professional societies, and 18 pharmaceutical and diagnostics companies identified patient confusion inconsistent testing terms as a possible contributing factor to biomarker testing underutilization. The group aimed to address patients’ confusion by identifying and adopting consistent, plain language terms for biomarker and germline genetic testing that are applicable across cancer types. Methods: Following a stakeholder roundtable discussion on barriers to precision medicine, working group members participated in interviews on their goals for consistent testing terminology for their constituents. We then conducted a framework analysis covering five themes: available testing by cancer type; purpose of test; biospecimen source; terms used in patient education; and preferred plain language term. Working group members were surveyed on preferences for germline testing terminology and also deployed a preliminary patient survey to their constituents to gain insight on preferences for germline testing terms. Results: Interviews, framework analysis, and surveys revealed notable differences across cancer communities. We identified at least 33 different terms related to biomarker, genetic and genomic testing being used in patient education and clinical care among the different cancer communities and stakeholders. Terminology was complicated by the variety of testing modalities and gene mutations tested for across cancers. Following multiple discussions, working group members agreed on two umbrella terms to distinguish between somatic and germline testing with additional context for specific cancer communities. “Biomarker testing” was selected as the somatic testing term. “Genetic testing for an inherited mutation” and “genetic testing for inherited cancer risk” were selected as preferred germline testing terms. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the disparate testing terminology landscape and the need for consistent terms to reduce patient confusion, improve communication, facilitate shared decision-making and assure concordance in policy development.

Disparities in Genetic Testing and Care among Black women with Hereditary Breast Cancer.

Despite a steady improvement in breast cancer survival rates over the past several decades, mortality disparities remain among Black women, who have a 42% higher death rate compared to non-Hispanic white (NHW) women. Hereditary breast cancer (HBC) accounts for 5-10% of all breast cancer cases, the majority of which are due to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) genes. Despite the availability of BRCA testing for over 25 years, there remain disproportionately lower rates of genetic testing among Blacks compared to NHW due to a multitude of factors. The intent of this review is to discuss racial disparities focused on HBC across diverse populations and review the existing gaps to be addressed when delivering gene-based care. The factors contributing to the racial survival disparity are undoubtedly complex and likely an interplay between tumor biology, genomics, patterns of care and socioeconomic factors. Advances in genomic technologies that now allow for full characterization of germline DNA sequencing are integral in defining the complex and multifactorial cause of breast cancer and may help to explain the existing racial survival disparities. Identification of inherited cancer risk may lead to cancer prevention, early cancer detection, treatment guidance, and ultimately has great potential to improve outcomes. Consequently, advances in HBC diagnosis and treatment without widespread implementation have the potential to further widen the existing breast cancer mortality gap between Black and NHW women.

Points to consider: is there evidence to support BRCA1/2 and other inherited breast cancer genetic testing for all breast cancer patients? A statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

Points to consider: is there evidence to support BRCA1/2 and other inherited breast cancer genetic testing for all breast cancer patients? A statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

Education on cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling to address cancer health disparities among racial/ethnic groups and rural populations: Implementing culturally tailored outreach through community health educators.

While significant progress is being made in cancer prevention and treatment, opportunity exists to make a difference for populations bearing an uneven burden of the disease. Research indicates that increased inherited risk and more-aggressive forms of cancer among underserved racial/ethnic (R/E) groups (e.g., African American/Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander) and rural populations may explain the cancer incidence and mortality disparities these populations experience. These racial and ethnic (R/E) categories reflect the standard naming convention for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity. One method by which progress can be made for these underserved populations is to expand knowledge of, access to, and uptake of two existing and impactful preventive oncology tools-cancer screening and genetic counseling and risk assessment (GCRA). Individuals from these populations who have cancer may benefit by learning about treatment options, risk projections for secondary cancers, and clinical trial participation. Effecting change in community beliefs and behaviors regarding these preventive tools and yielding the aforementioned benefits will see greater success if shepherded by individuals accepted and trusted in the respective communities. This was the charge taken on and embraced by Community Health Educators in the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities' (CRCHD) National Outreach Network (NON) and U54 Comprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) programs. The NCI CRCHD integrated into the work of these CHEs an emphasis on cancer genetic education. As part of their undertaking, NON and CPACHE CHEs detail education and outreach strategies that may be helpful to increase GCRA awareness and uptake in R/E groups and rural populations and, in turn, bring positive change for those with or at risk for heritable cancers.

A Pilot Study of an Online Screening Tool to Identify Women with Inherited Cancer Risk

A Pilot Study of an Online Screening Tool to Identify Women with Inherited Cancer Risk