Search

Genetic healthcare professionals provide genetic cancer risk assessment and follow-up care for patients facing hereditary cancers. To meet the needs of those affected by hereditary colorectal cancer, City of Hope and the Hereditary Colon Cancer Foundation collaborated to develop a "Family Day" conference. We describe the development of our conference based upon the Hereditary Colon Cancer Foundation's "Family Day" program model, with refinements completed using the Participatory Action Research theoretical framework, which incorporated input from conference participants and researchers. Thirty-one participants attended the conference, representing patients with, or families, friends, and caregivers of those with, multiple colorectal cancer predisposition syndromes, including Lynch, familial adenomatous polyposis, and juvenile polyposis. Participants who completed the feedback surveys (n = 22) were highly satisfied with the presentation content, ranking the keynote lecture on family communication the highest of the conference events. Participants also provided feedback regarding how to improve future conferences. In conclusion, we share our experience and provide guidance for developing a successful hereditary colon cancer predisposition patient and family conference.

Background: Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are driving a shift from single-gene to multigene panel testing for clinical genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). This study explored perceptions, experiences, and challenges with NGS testing for GCRA among U.S. community-based clinicians., Methods: Surveys delivered at initial and 8-month time points, and 12-month tracking of cases presented in a multidisciplinary web-based case conference series, were conducted with GCRA providers who participated in a 235-member nationwide community of practice., Results: The proportion of respondents ordering panel tests rose from 29% at initial survey (27/94) to 44% (46/107) within 8 months. Respondents reported significantly less confidence about interpreting and counseling about NGS compared with single-gene test results (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). The most cited reasons for not ordering NGS tests included concerns about clinical utility, interpreting and communicating results, and lack of knowledge/skills. Multigene panels were used in 204/668 cases presented during 2013, yielding 37 (18%) deleterious (7% in low/moderate-penetrance genes), 88 (43%) with ≥1 variant of uncertain significance, 77 (38%) uninformative negative, and 2 (1%) inconclusive results., Conclusions: Despite concerns about utility and ability to interpret/counsel about NGS results, a rapidly increasing uptake of NGS testing among community clinicians was documented. Challenges identified in case discussions point to the need for ongoing education, practice-based support, and opportunities to partner in research that contributes to characterization of lesser known genes.