Effects of cancer type and sex on genetic testing for clinician recommendation and uptake

This study investigated reasons for lower-than-expected uptake of germline genetic testing compared to national guidelines amongst adult patients with cancer, self-reporting clinician recommendation for genetic testing. Cross-sectional survey of 596 patients with a personal history of cancer, responded about their cancer diagnosis, physician recommendation for and status of genetic testing and demographics. Adjusting for potential confounding factors (cancer type, education, income and insurance status) male sex significantly decreased odds of receiving a clinical recommendation for genetic testing (Odds Ratio: 0.06; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.04–0.10). Females, with a diagnosis of breast cancer, were more likely to receive a recommendation than other cancer types (64.8% vs. 90.9%, p < 0.001). Participants who received a physician recommendation were significantly more likely to receive genetic testing (p < 0.001). Clinician recommendation is an important driver of genetic testing, necessitating efforts to increase clinician recommendations, particularly for males and patients with cancers other than breast.

Adults; Cancer; Genetic testing; Genetic risk; Breast cancer; Prostate cancer; Adherence

[1] Haverfield EV, Esplin ED, Aguilar SJ, Hatchell KE, Ormond KE, Hanson-Kahn A, et al. Correction to: physician-directed genetic screening to evaluate personal risk for medically actionable disorders: a large multi-center cohort study. BMC Medicine. 2021; 19: 288.

[2] Gornick MC, Ryan KA, Scherer AM, Scott Roberts J, De Vries RG, Uhlmann WR. Interpretations of the term “Actionable” when discussing genetic test results: what you mean is not what I heard. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2019; 28: 334–342.

[3] Hamilton JG, Symecko H, Spielman K, Breen K, Mueller R, Catchings A, et al. Uptake and acceptability of a mainstreaming model of hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. Genetics in Medicine. 2021; 23: 2105–2113.

[4] Bednar EM, Nitecki R, Krause KJ, Rauh-Hain JA. Interventions to improve delivery of cancer genetics services in the United States: a scoping review. Genetics in Medicine. 2022; 24: 1176–1186.

[5] Cragun D, Bonner D, Kim J, Akbari MR, Narod SA, Gomez-Fuego A, et al. Factors associated with genetic counseling and BRCA testing in a population-based sample of young Black women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2015; 151: 169–176.

[6] Shaw J, Bulsara C, Cohen PA, Gryta M, Nichols CB, Schofield L, et al. Investigating barriers to genetic counseling and germline mutation testing in women with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and Lynch syndrome. Patient Education and Counseling. 2018; 101: 938–944.

[7] Caswell-Jin JL, Zimmer AD, Stedden W, Kingham KE, Zhou AY, Kurian AW. Cascade genetic testing of relatives for hereditary cancer risk: results of an online initiative. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2019; 111: 95–98.

[8] Scott D, Friedman S, Telli ML, Kurian AW. Decision making about genetic testing among women with a personal and family history of breast cancer. JCO Oncology Practice. 2020; 16: e37–e55.

[9] Mendoza JA, Miller CA, Martin KJ, Resnicow K, Iachan R, Faseru B, et al. Examining the association of food insecurity and being up-to-date for breast and colorectal cancer screenings. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2022; 31: 1017–1025.

[10] Wang G, Beattie MS, Ponce NA, Phillips KA. Eligibility criteria in private and public coverage policies for BRCA genetic testing and genetic counseling. Genetics in Medicine. 2011; 13: 1045–1050.

[11] Lin GA, Trosman JR, Douglas MP, Weldon CB, Scheuner MT, Kurian A, et al. Influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2022; 31: 130–139.

[12] Muller C, Lee SM, Barge W, Siddique SM, Berera S, Wideroff G, et al. Low referral rate for genetic testing in racially and ethnically diverse patients despite universal colorectal cancer screening. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2018; 16: 1911–1918.e2.

[13] Huang M, Kamath P, Schlumbrecht M, Miao F, Driscoll D, Oldak S, et al. Identifying disparities in germline and somatic testing for ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2019; 153: 297–303.

[14] Lacour RA, Daniels MS, Westin SN, Meyer LA, Burke CC, Burns KA, et al. What women with ovarian cancer think and know about genetic testing. Gynecologic Oncology. 2008; 111: 132–136.

[15] Freedman RA, Kouri EM, West DW, Keating NL. Racial/ethnic disparities in knowledge about one’s breast cancer characteristics. Cancer. 2015; 121: 724–732.

[16] Douglas MP, Lin GA, Trosman JR, Phillips KA. Hereditary cancer panel testing challenges and solutions for the latinx community: costs, access, and variants. Journal of Community Genetics. 2022; 13: 75–80.

[17] Evaluation of Genomic Applications in P, Prevention Working G. Recommendations from the EGAPP working group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genetics in Medicine. 2009; 11: 35–41.

[18] Sharaf RN, Myer P, Stave CD, Diamond LC, Ladabaum U. Uptake of genetic testing by relatives of lynch syndrome probands: a systematic review. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2013; 11: 1093–1100.

[19] Katapodi MC, Northouse L, Pierce P, Milliron KJ, Liu G, Merajver SD. Differences between women who pursued genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and their at-risk relatives who did not. Oncology Nursing Forum. 2011; 38: 572–581.

[20] Greve V, Odom K, Pudner S, Lamb NE, Cooper SJ, East K. Characteristics and experiences of patients from a community-based and consumer-directed hereditary cancer population screening initiative. Human Genetics and Genomics Advances. 2022; 3: 100055.

[21] Mallen AR, Conley CC, Fuzzell L, Ketcher D, Augusto BM, McIntyre M, et al. “I think that a brief conversation from their provider can go a very long way”: patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators of genetic testing after ovarian cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2021; 29: 2663–2677.

[22] Vaimberg E, Demers L, Ford E, Sabatello M, Stevens B, Dasgupta S. Project inclusive genetics: exploring the impact of patient-centered counseling training on physical disability bias in the prenatal setting. PLOS ONE. 2021; 16: e0255722.

[23] Vysotskaia V, Kaseniit KE, Bucheit L, Ready K, Price K, Johansen Taber K. Clinical utility of hereditary cancer panel testing: Impact of PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C and RAD51D results on patient management and adherence to provider recommendations. Cancer. 2020; 126: 549–558.

[24] Halverson CME, Wessinger BC, Clayton EW, Wiesner GL. Patients’ willingness to reconsider cancer genetic testing after initially declining: mention it again. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2020; 29: 18–24.

[25] Krakow M, Ratcliff C, Hesse B, Greenberg-Worisek A. Assessing genetic literacy awareness and knowledge gaps in the us population: results from the health information national trends survey. Public Health Genomics. 2017; 20: 343–348.

[26] Ladd MK, Peshkin BN, Isaacs C, Hooker G, Willey S, Valdimarsdottir H, et al. Predictors of genetic testing uptake in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2020; 122: 134–143.

[27] Giri VN, Walker A, Gross L, Trabulsi EJ, Lallas CD, Kelly WK, et al. Helix: a digital tool to address provider needs for prostate cancer genetic testing in clinical practice. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. 2022; 20: e104–e113.

[28] Loeb S, Li R, Sanchez Nolasco T, Byrne N, Cheng HH, Becker D, et al. Barriers and facilitators of germline genetic evaluation for prostate cancer. The Prostate. 2021; 81: 754–764.

[29] Gupta S, Provenzale D, Llor X, Halverson AL, Grady W, Chung DC, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: colorectal, version 2.2019. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2019; 17: 1032–1041.

[30] Daly MB, Pilarski R, Yurgelun MB, Berry MP, Buys SS, Dickson P, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic, version 1.2020. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2020; 18: 380–391.

[31] Duenas DM, Shipman KJ, Porter KM, Shuster E, Guerra C, Reyes A, et al. Motivations and concerns of patients considering participation in an implementation study of a hereditary cancer risk assessment program in diverse primary care settings. Genetics in Medicine. 2022; 24: 610–621.

[32] Hurst JH. Pioneering geneticist mary-claire king receives the 2014 Lasker~Koshland special achievement award in medical science. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2014; 124: 4148–4151.

[33] Boland CR, Lynch HT. The history of lynch syndrome. Familial Cancer. 2013; 12: 145–157.

[34] Hann KEJ, Freeman M, Fraser L, Waller J, Sanderson SC, Rahman B, et al. Awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards genetic testing for cancer risk among ethnic minority groups: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2017; 17: 503.

[35] Wing SE, Hu H, Lopez L, Solomon I, Shen J, Raquel C, et al. Recall of genomic testing results among patients with cancer. The Oncologist. 2021; 26: e2302–e2305.

[36] Jacobs C, Dancyger C, Smith JA, Michie S. Accuracy of recall of information about a cancer-predisposing BRCA1/2 gene mutation among patients and relatives. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2015; 23: 147–151.