Search

Background: Recommendations state all people with ovarian cancers (OCs) receive genetic counseling, but testing uptake is only between 15 and 31%. Those with a prior diagnosis of OC who have not received genetic testing represent a missed opportunity for life-saving genetic risk information. The Genetic Risk Analysis in ovarian CancEr (GRACE) study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of the retrospective identification ("Traceback") of individuals diagnosed with OC., Methods: This nonrandomized intervention study within two integrated health care systems identified participants with a history of OC between 1998 and 2020 who did not have genetic testing or testing limited to BRCA1/2. Participants received clinical genomic sequencing via a custom 60 gene panel. This study measured the feasibility of the Traceback methodology in OC survivors., Results: The initial cohort included 929 individuals, of which 57% had no prior genetic testing. Of the 302 eligible for recruitment, 88 consented to participate. We were able to outreach 97% of the eligible population using contact information from medical records. The stage at diagnosis was the only factor associated with consent. Of the 78 who returned their saliva sample, 21% had pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants, and 79% had negative results., Conclusion: The GRACE study resulted in a 29% uptake of genetic testing in OC survivors. The time since diagnosis did not have an impact on consent or ability to contact. GRACE can inform the implementation of future Traceback programs, providing guidance on how to prevent and mitigate the burden of OC and other hereditary cancers.

Scalable models for result disclosure are needed to ensure large-scale access to genomics services. Research evaluating alternatives to genetic counseling suggests effectiveness; however, it is unknown whether these findings are generalizable across populations. We assessed whether a letter is non-inferior to telephone genetic counseling to inform participants with no personal or family history of cancer of their normal results. Data were collected via self-report surveys before and after result disclosure (at 1 and 6 months) in a study sample enriched for individuals from underserved populations. Primary outcomes were subjective understanding of results (global and aggregated) and test-related feelings, ascertained via three subscales (uncertainty, negative emotions, and positive feelings) of the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) measure. Secondary outcomes related to satisfaction with communication. Non-inferiority tests compared outcomes among disclosure methods. Communication by letter was inferior in terms of global subjective understanding of results (at 1 month) and non-inferior to telephoned results (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for aggregated understanding (at 6 months). Letter was superior (at 1 month) to telephone on the uncertainty FACToR subscale. Letter was non-inferior to telephone on the positive-feelings FACToR subscale (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for satisfaction with mode of result delivery and genetic test results. Communication via letter was inferior to telephone in communicating the "right amount of information." The use of written communication to relay normal results to low-risk individuals is a promising strategy that may improve the efficiency of care delivery., (© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2024. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: We evaluated whether people who had not completed a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening would complete a blood-based testing option if offered one during health encounters. Blood-based screening tests for CRC could add to the total number of people screened for CRC by providing another testing alternative., Design: Study participants were patients aged 45-75 years at a large, integrated health system who were offered but did not complete an FIT in the prior 3-9 months and were scheduled for a clinical encounter. Individuals were randomised (1:1) to be offered a commercially available CRC blood test (Shield, Guardant Health) versus usual care. We compared 3-month CRC screening proportions in the two groups., Results: We randomised 2026 patients; 2004 remained eligible following postrandomisation exclusions (1003 to usual care and 1001 to blood draw offer; mean age: 60, 62% female, 80% non-Hispanic white). Of the 1001 allocated to the blood test group, 924 were recruited following chart-review exclusions; 548 (59.3%) were reached via phone, of which 280 (51.1%) scheduled an appointment with the research team. CRC screening proportions were 17.5 percentage points higher in the blood test group versus usual care (30.5% vs 13.0%; OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.70; p<0.001)., Conclusion: Among adults who had declined prior CRC screening, the offer of a blood-based screening test boosted CRC screening by 17.5 percentage points over usual care. Further research is needed on how to balance the favourable adherence with lower advanced adenoma detection compared with other available tests., Trial Registration Number: NCT05987709., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GDC has served as a scientific advisor for Exact Sciences., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Identification of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in the community setting is increasing. We describe testing for CDI among patients with medically attended diarrhea (MAD) in the outpatient setting, and the incidence of outpatient CDI., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study among members ≥18 years of age from Kaiser Permanente Southern California and Kaiser Permanente Northwest from 1 January 2016 through 31 December 2021. MAD was identified by outpatient diarrheal International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision diagnosis codes, and CDI through positive laboratory results. Outpatient CDI was defined by no hospitalization ≤7 days after specimen collection. Incidence rates (IRs) of outpatient CDI were stratified by select demographic and clinical variables. Outpatient CDI burden 12 months following index date was measured by CDI-associated healthcare visits, and CDI testing and treatment., Results: We identified 777 533 MAD episodes; 12.1% (93 964/777 533) were tested for CDI. Of those tested, 10.8% (10 110/93 964) were positive. Outpatient CDI IR was 51.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.8-52.2) per 100 000 person-years, decreasing from 58.2 (95% CI, 55.7-60.7) in 2016 to 45.7 (95% CI, 43.7-47.8) in 2021. Approximately 44% (n = 4200) received an antibiotic 30 days prior to index date and 84.1% (n = 8006) CDIs were "community-associated" (no hospitalizations 12 weeks prior to index date). Of outpatient CDIs, 6.7% (n = 526) had a CDI-associated hospitalization ≤12 months., Conclusions: There was a high incidence of outpatient CDI despite infrequent CDI testing among patients with MAD. The majority of those with outpatient CDI had no recent antibiotic use and no recent hospitalization. Further studies are needed to understand the source and management of medically attended outpatient CDI., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. J. L. K. has received research funding from Pfizer, related to this work, and from Vir Biotechnology and Novartis, unrelated to this work. S. Y. T. has received research funding from Pfizer, related to this work, and from Pfizer and GSK, unrelated to this work; all funding was paid directly to the institution. A. F. has received funding from Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, and Gilead, unrelated to this manuscript. F. J. A., J. Z., and E. G. are employees of Pfizer Inc and hold stock and stock options in Pfizer Inc. M. A. S. received institutional research grant funding from Pfizer for this study, and from Moderna Pharmaceuticals and Vir Biotechnology for work unrelated to this study. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Objective: Frailty and late-life depression (LLD) often coexist and share several structural brain changes. We aimed to study the joint effect LLD and frailty have on brain structure., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: Academic Health Center., Participants: Thirty-one participants (14 LLD+Frail and 17 Never-depressed+Robust)., Measurement: LLD was diagnosed by a geriatric psychiatrist according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition for single episode or recurrent major depressive disorder without psychotic features. Frailty was assessed using the FRAIL scale (0-5), classifying subjects as robust (0), prefrail (1-2), and frail (3-5). Participants underwent T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in which covariance analysis of subcortical volumes and vertex-wise analysis of cortical thickness values were performed to access changes in grey matter. Participants also underwent diffusion tensor imaging in which tract-based spatial statistics was used with voxel-wise statistical analysis on fractional anisotropy and mean diffusion values to assess changes in white matter (WM)., Results: We found a significant difference in mean diffusion values (48,225 voxels; peak voxel: pFWER=0.005, MINI coord. (X,Y,Z) = -26,-11,27) between the LLD-Frail group and comparison group. The corresponding effect size (f=0.808) was large., Conclusion: We showed the LLD+Frailty group is associated with significant microstructural changes within WM tracts compared to Never-depressed+Robust individuals. Our findings indicate the possibility of a heightened neuroinflammatory burden as a potential mechanism underlying the co-occurrence of both conditions and the possibility of a depression-frailty phenotype in older adults.

Purpose: With increasing utilization of genetic testing, sharing genetic information can become part of general family health communication while providing biological relatives with important information about their own genetic risk. Importantly, little is known about motivations for and barriers to family communication of genetic information in historically underserved populations., Methods: Using mixed methods, we explored patient experiences with family communication in a study population of English- and Spanish-speaking adults aged 18 to 49 years, enriched for participants from historically underserved backgrounds. Risk screening for hereditary cancer guided genetic testing for cancer risk genes and other medically actionable findings., Results: Most participants overall (91%), including most with normal findings (89%), shared or planned to share their results with relatives. Common motivations for sharing results were to give relatives information about their genetic risk and because the participant thought the results were interesting. Reasons for not sharing were limited contact with relatives, perceptions of limited clinical utility for relatives, and concern that discussion of genetic information was stigmatized or taboo., Conclusion: Results demonstrate high rates of sharing genetic information, indicate motivations for sharing go beyond facilitating genetic testing for relatives, and suggest general willingness to share genetic information as part of family health communication., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Laura Amendola is an employee and shareholder of Illumina. The remaining authors have no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Risk assessment for hereditary cancer syndromes is recommended in primary care, but family history is rarely collected in enough detail to facilitate risk assessment and referral - a roadblock that disproportionately impacts individuals with healthcare access barriers. We sought to qualitatively assess a literacy-adapted, electronic patient-facing family history tool developed for use in diverse, underserved patient populations recruited in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study., Methods: Interview participants were recruited from a subpopulation of CHARM participants who experienced barriers to tool use in terms of spending a longer time to complete the tool, having incomplete attempts, and/or providing inaccurate family history in comparison to a genetic counselor-collected standard. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants about barriers and facilitators to tool use and overall tool acceptability; interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were coded based on a codebook developed using inductive techniques, and coded excerpts were reviewed to identify overarching themes related to barriers and facilitators to family history self-assessment and acceptability of the study tool., Results: Interviewees endorsed the tool as easy to navigate and understand. However, they described barriers related to family history information, literacy and language, and certain tool functions. Participants offered concrete, easy-to-implement solutions to each barrier. Despite experience barriers to use of the tool, most participants indicated that electronic family history self-assessment was acceptable or preferable in comparison to clinician-collected family history., Conclusions: Even for participants who experienced barriers to tool use, family history self-assessment was considered an acceptable alternative to clinician-collected family history. Barriers experienced could be overcome with minor adaptations to the current family history tool., Trial Registration: This study is a sub-study of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) trial, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03426878. Registered 8 February 2018., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the laboratory-related outcomes of participants who were offered genomic testing based on cancer family history risk assessment tools., Methods: Patients from clinics that serve populations with access barriers, who are screened at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome based on adapted family history collection tools (the Breast Cancer Genetics Referral Screening Tool and PREMM 5 ), were offered exome-based panel testing for cancer risk and medically actionable secondary findings. We used descriptive statistics, electronic health record review, and inferential statistics to explore participant characteristics and results, consultations and actions related to pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants identified, and variables predicting category of findings, respectively., Results: Of all the participants, 87% successfully returned a saliva kit. Overall, 5% had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic cancer risk variant and 1% had a secondary finding. Almost all (14/15, 93%) participants completed recommended consultations with nongenetics providers after an average of 17 months. The recommended actions (eg, breast magnetic resonance imaging) were completed by 17 of 25 participants. Participant personal history of cancer and PREMM 5 score were each associated with the category of findings (history and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .02; history and breast cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .01; PREMM 5 TM score; and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P < .001)., Conclusion: This accessible model of hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing yielded results that were often acted upon by patients and physicians., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest S.S. reports being a consultant for Myriad Genetics and reports receiving an inventor share of licensing revenues from the PREMM model. L.M.A. is an employee of Illumina, Inc. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Lynch syndrome (LS) is associated with an increased risk of colorectal (CRC) and endometrial (EC) cancers. Universal tumor screening (UTS) of all individuals diagnosed with CRC and EC is recommended to increase identification of LS. Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) implemented a UTS program for LS among individuals newly diagnosed with CRC in January 2016 and EC in November 2016. UTS at KPNW begins with immunohistochemistry (IHC) of tumor tissue to determine loss of mismatch repair proteins associated with LS (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2)., IHC showing loss of MLH1 is followed by reflex testing (automatic testing) to detect the presence of the BRAF V600E variant (in cases of CRC) and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation to rule out likely sporadic cases., Materials and Methods: Individuals newly diagnosed with CRC and EC were identified between the initiation of the respective UTS programs and July 2018. Electronic medical records were reviewed to extract patient data related to UTS, including IHC and reflex testing results, date of referrals to the genetics department, and results of germline genetic testing for LS., Results: 313 out of 362 individuals diagnosed with CRC and 61 out of 64 individuals diagnosed with EC who were eligible were screened by IHC for LS. Most (47/52 or 90%, including 46/49 CRC and 1/3 EC) individuals that were not screened by IHC only had a biopsy sample available. Fourteen individuals (3.7% overall, including 13/313 CRC and 1/61 EC) received an abnormal result after reflex testing and were referred for genetic counseling. Of these, 10 individuals (71% overall, including 9/13 CRC and 1/1 EC) underwent germline genetic testing for LS. Five individuals diagnosed with CRC were found to have pathogenic variants. in PMS2 (n = 3), MLH1 (n = 1), and MSH6 (n = 1). No pathogenic variants were identified in individuals diagnosed with EC., Conclusions: UTS identified individuals at risk for LS. Most individuals who screened positive for LS had follow-up germline genetic testing for LS. The consistent use of biopsy samples is an opportunity to improve UTS., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common inherited cause of colorectal and endometrial cancers. Identifying individuals at risk for LS without personal cancer history requires detailed collection and assessment of family health history. However, barriers exist to family health history collection, especially in historically underserved populations. To improve LS risk assessment in historically underserved populations, we adapted the provider-facing PREdiction Model for gene Mutations (PREMM 5 ™ model), a validated LS risk assessment model, into a patient-facing electronic application through an iterative development process involving expert and patient stakeholders. We report on preliminary findings based on the first 500 individuals exposed to the adapted application in a primary care population enriched for low-literacy and low-resource patients. Major adaptations to the PREMM 5 ™ provider module included reduction in reading level, addition of interactive literacy aids, incorporation of family history assessment for both maternal and paternal sides of the family, and inclusion of questions about individual relatives or small groups of relatives to reduce cognitive burden. In the first 500 individuals, 90% completed the PREMM 5 ™ independently; of those, 94% did so in 5 min or less (ranged from 0.2 to 48.8 min). The patient-facing application was able to accurately classify 84% of patients as having clinically significant or not clinically significant LS risk. Our preliminary results suggest that in this diverse study population, most participants were able to rapidly, accurately, and independently complete an interactive application collecting family health history assessment that accurately assessed for Lynch syndrome risk., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Understanding the motivations and concerns of patients from diverse populations regarding participation in implementation research provides the needed evidence about how to design and conduct studies for facilitating access to genetics services. Within a hereditary cancer screening study assessing a multifaceted intervention, we examined primary care patients' motivations and concerns about participation., Methods: We surveyed and interviewed study participants after they enrolled, surveyed those who did not complete enrollment, and used descriptive qualitative and quantitative methods to identify motivations and concerns regarding participation., Results: Survey respondents' most common motivations included a desire to learn about their future risk (81%), receiving information that may help family (58%), and a desire to advance research (34%). Interviews revealed 3 additional important factors: affordability of testing, convenience of participation, and clinical relationships supporting research decision-making. Survey data of those who declined enrollment showed that the reasons for declining included concerns about privacy (38%), burdens of the research (19%), and their fear of not being able to cope with the genetic information (19%)., Conclusion: Understanding the facilitating factors and concerns that contribute to decisions about research may reveal ways to improve equity in access to care and research that could lead to greater uptake of genomic medicine across diverse primary care patient populations., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)