nach oben

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Erschienen in:

31.08.2016 | Epidemiology

A collaborative approach to cancer risk assessment services using genetic counselor extenders in a multi-system community hospital

verfasst von: Stephanie A. Cohen, Dawn M. Nixon

Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Ausgabe 3/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate a unique approach to cancer risk assessment for improved access by smaller rural communities.

Methods

Local, on-site nurse navigators were trained and utilized as genetic counselor extenders (GCEs) to provide basic risk assessment and offer BRCA1/2 genetic testing to select patients based on a triaging process in collaboration with board-certified genetic counselors (CGCs).

Results

From August 2012 to July 2014, 12,477 family history questionnaires representing 8937 unique patients presenting for a screening mammogram or new oncology appointment were triaged. Of these, 8.2 % patients were identified at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer, and 4.2 % were identified at increased risk for other hereditary causes of cancer. A total of 75 of 1130 at-risk patients identified (6.6 %) completed a genetic risk assessment appointment; 23 with a GCE and 52 with a CGC. A review of the completed genetic test requisition forms from a 9-year pre-collaboration time period found that 16 % (20/125) did not appear to meet genetic testing criteria. Overall, there was a fourfold increase in patients accessing genetic services in this study period compared to the pre-collaboration time period. Efficiency of this model was assessed by determining time spent by the CGC in all activities related to the collaboration, which amounted to approximately 16 h/month. Adjustments have been made and the program continues to be monitored for opportunities to improve efficiency.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the feasibility of CGCs and GCEs collaborating to improve access to quality services in an efficient manner.

Evans DGR et al (2014) The Angelina Jolie effect: how high celebrity profile can have a major impact on provision of cancer related services. Breast Cancer Res 16(5):442CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Borzekowski DLG et al (2014) The Angelina effect: immediate reach, grasp, and impact of going public. Genet Med 16(7):516–521CrossRefPubMed

Dunlop K, Kirk J, Tucker K (2014) In the wake of Angelina managing a family history of breast cancer. Aust Fam Physician 43:76–78PubMed

Raphael J et al (2014) The impact of Angelina Jolie’s (AJ) story on genetic referral and testing at an academic cancer centre. ASCO Meeting Abstracts 32(26_suppl):44

van der Post RS et al (2015) Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated clinical guidelines with an emphasis on germline CDH1 mutation carriers. J Med Genet 52(6):361–374CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Vasen HFA et al (2013) Revised guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (HNPCC): recommendations by a group of European experts. Gut 62:812–823CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Thakker RV et al (2012) clinical practice guidelines for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). J Clin Endocr Metab 97(9):2990–3011CrossRefPubMed

Syngal S et al (2015) ACG clinical guideline: genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol 110(2):223–262CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Nelson HD et al (2014) Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: a systematic review to update the U.S. preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 160(4):255–266CrossRefPubMed

10.

Daly M et al (2015) NCCN guidelines version 2.2015: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian. NCCN guidelines 2015. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf. Accessed 6 Aug 2015

11.

Moyer VA (2014) risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 160(4):271–281CrossRefPubMed

12.

Rosenberg SM et al (2016) BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing in young women with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol 6:730–736CrossRef

13.

Kurtzman, S et al NAPBC Standards Manual, A.C.O. Surgeons, Editor. 2014

14.

Greene FL et al (2014) Cancer program standards 2012: ensuring patient-centered care v1.2.1. American College of Surgeons, Chicago

15.

Langreth R (2013) Cigna demands counseling for breast test in myriad threat, in Bloomberg Buisiness

16.

Cragun D et al (2014) Differences in BRCA counseling and testing practices based on ordering provider type. Genet Med 17:51–57CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Riley JD et al (2015) Improving molecular genetic test utilization through order restriction, test review, and guidance. J Mol Diagn 17(3):225–229CrossRefPubMed

18.

Douma KFL, Smets EMA, Allain DC (2016) Non-genetic health professionals’ attitude towards, knowledge of and skills in discussing and ordering genetic testing for hereditary cancer. Fam Cancer 15(2):341–350CrossRefPubMed

19.

Vadaparampil ST et al (2015) Pre-test genetic counseling services for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer delivered by non-genetics professionals in the state of Florida. Clin Genet 87:473–477CrossRefPubMed

20.

Brierley KL et al (2010) Errors in delivery of cancer genetics services: implications for practice. Conn Med 74(7):413–423PubMed

21.

Brierley KL et al (2012) adverse events in cancer genetic testing: medical, ethical, legal, and financial implications. Cancer J 18(4):303–309. doi:10.1097/PPO.0b013e3182609490 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Bonadies DC et al (2014) adverse events in cancer genetic testing: the third case series. Cancer J 20(4):246–253. doi:10.1097/PPO.0000000000000057 CrossRefPubMed

23.

NSGC 2016 Professional status survey: executive summary (2016). www.nsgc.org. Accessed 8 Oct 2016

24.

NSGC. 2014 NSGC Professional Status Survey Executive Summary (2014) The NSGC Professional Status Survey (PSS) offers an inside view of the profession, including salary ranges, benefits, work environments, faculty status and even job satisfaction. www.nsgc.org. Accessed 28 Apr 2014

25.

Sifri R et al (2003) Use of cancer susceptibility testing among primary care physicians. Clin Genet 64(4):355–360CrossRefPubMed

26.

Wideroff L et al (2003) Physician use of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: results of a national survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 12(4):295–303

27.

Hooker GW et al (2014) Presented abstracts from the Thirty Third Annual Education Conference of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (New Orleans, LA, September 2014): large scale changes in cancer genetic testing with variable integration of expanded gene panels. J Genet Couns 23(6):1070–1071

28.

Bookman T (2016) Genetic counselors struggle to keep up with hugh new demand. Kaiser Health News

29.

Pan V et al (2016) Expanding the genetic counseling workforce: program directors/’ views on increasing the size of genetic counseling graduate programs. Genet Med 18:842–849CrossRefPubMed

30.

Schwartz MD et al (2014) Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 32:618–626CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

McDonald E et al (2014) Acceptability of telemedicine and other cancer genetic counseling models of service delivery in geographically remote settings. J Genet Couns 23(2):221–228CrossRefPubMed

32.

Cohen SA et al (2013) Identification of genetic counseling service delivery models in practice: a report from the NSGC service delivery model task force. J Genet Couns 22(4):411–421CrossRefPubMed

33.

MacDonald DJ, Blazer KR, Weitzel JN (2010) Extending comprehensive cancer center expertise in clinical cancer genetics and genomics to diverse communities: the power of partnership. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8(5):615–624PubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Chang Y et al (2016) ReCAP: economic evaluation alongside a clinical trial of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for BRCA1/2 mutations in geographically underserved areas. J Oncol Pract 12(1):59CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Narod S (2015) Genetic testing for BRCA mutations today and tomorrow—about the about study. JAMA Oncol 1:1225–1226CrossRefPubMed

36.

Cohen S, McIlvried D (2013) Improving access with a collaborative approach to cancer genetic counseling services: a pilot study. Community Oncol 10(8):227–234

37.

Moyer VA (2013) Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 159:698–708PubMed

38.

ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins (2009) Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Gynecol Oncol 113(1):6–11CrossRef

39.

American Society Of Clinical Oncology (2003) American society of clinical oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 21(12):2397–2406CrossRef

40.

Mazzola E et al (2014) Recent BRCAPRO upgrades significantly improve calibration. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 23(8):1689–1695CrossRef

41.

Berry DA et al (2002) BRCAPRO validation, sensitivity of genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2, and prevalence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes. J Clin Oncol 20(11):2701–2712CrossRefPubMed

42.

Bellcross CA et al (2009) Evaluation of a breast/ovarian cancer genetics referral screening tool in a mammography population. Genet Med 11(11):783–789CrossRefPubMed

43.

Bellcross C (2010) Further development and evaluation of a breast/ovarian cancer genetics referral screening tool. Genet Med 12(4):240CrossRefPubMed

44.

Jones JL et al (2005) Evaluation of hereditary risk in a mammography population. Clin Breast Cancer 6(1):38–44CrossRefPubMed

45.

McDonnell C et al (2013) Self administered screening for hereditary cancers in conjunction with mammography and ultrasound. Fam Cancer 12:651–656CrossRefPubMed

46.

Ozanne EM et al (2009) identification and management of women at high risk for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndrome. Breast J 15(2):155–162CrossRefPubMed

47.

Miller CE et al (2014) Genetic counselor review of genetic test orders in a reference laboratory reduces unnecessary testing. Am J Med Genet Part A 164(5):1094–1101CrossRef

48.

Moyer VA (2014) Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 160(4):271–281CrossRefPubMed

Titel: A collaborative approach to cancer risk assessment services using genetic counselor extenders in a multi-system community hospital
verfasst von: Stephanie A. Cohen
Dawn M. Nixon
Publikationsdatum: 31.08.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3964-z

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

23.04.2024 | Medikamente in Schwangerschaft und Stillzeit | Nachrichten

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

A collaborative approach to cancer risk assessment services using genetic counselor extenders in a multi-system community hospital

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Krebspatienten impfen: Was? Wen? Und wann nicht?

Müde im Alter? Auch an die Nebenniere denken

Stufenschema weist Prostatakarzinom zuverlässig nach

Update Onkologie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

Erratum to: Exposure to polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners measured shortly after giving birth and subsequent risk of maternal breast cancer before age 50

Breast cancer-specific mortality in small-sized tumor with node-positive breast cancer: a nation-wide study in Korean breast cancer society

Understanding racial differences in health-related quality of life in a population-based cohort of breast cancer survivors

A prospective study of endometriosis and risk of benign breast disease

Subsequent risk of ipsilateral and contralateral invasive breast cancer after treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: incidence and the effect of radiotherapy in a population-based cohort of 10,090 women

Phosphorylation of LSD1 at Ser112 is crucial for its function in induction of EMT and metastasis in breast cancer

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Krebspatienten impfen: Was? Wen? Und wann nicht?

Müde im Alter? Auch an die Nebenniere denken

Stufenschema weist Prostatakarzinom zuverlässig nach

Update Onkologie