Amanda Gammon

Contracting is a skill used by genetic counselors (GCs) to establish a shared vision for the session. Ensuring that patients and GCs are aligned on expectations for the encounter allows GCs to meet patient needs and support patient autonomy. Although contracting is described in the practice‐based competencies (PBCs), the process has not been systematically observed in practice. We sought to further elucidate the skills used for contracting within genetic counseling sessions through directed content analysis of transcripts from 148 simulated prenatal and cancer genetic counseling sessions. An a priori codebook and rating scale were developed based on four contracting sample skills described in the PBCs: (a) describing the genetic counseling process, (b) eliciting client concerns, (c) applying client concerns to a session agenda, (d) modifying the agenda in response to emerging concerns. The rating scale described the quality of each skill on a 4‐point scale of “absent,” “minimal,” “adequate,” and “excellent.” The codebook and rating scale were pilot tested with 40% of transcripts (n = 60). Three authors independently coded and rated the final 60% of transcripts (n = 88), resolving discrepancies via a consensus process. We found that the four PBC skills were present in most sessions (88%–98%), and on average, GCs received “adequate” scores on all four skills. We also identified three additional components of contracting not described in the PBCs: assessing whether client concerns were met, inviting to interrupt, and providing opportunity for partner concerns. This study represents the first attempt to evaluate GC performance of a PBC during a genetic counseling session. Our findings demonstrate that the PBC sample contracting skills reflect practice and suggest that they can be used in assessment of the genetic counseling contracting process. This type of analysis could be adapted in the future to provide support for other standards of practice in the genetic counseling field.

PURPOSE: As tumor genomic profiling (TGP) is increasingly used to help guide cancer treatment, BRCA variants, which may or may not be reflective of the germline genome, are being identified. As TGP use increases, it is becoming an important tool for referral to genetic counseling and identifying patients with hereditary cancer syndromes such as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. This study explores genetic counseling referral patterns and germline implications of patients found to have pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants identified through TGP.METHODS: Participants include patients at Huntsman Cancer Institute undergoing TGP through a single commercial laboratory between March 2014 and July 2018. A retrospective chart review was conducted for 62 patients found to have pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1/2 on TGP. Data on genetic counseling referrals and uptake, germline test results, family history, and patient demographics were collected.RESULTS: In the study time frame, 1,899 patients underwent TGP. Testing identified 67 PVs in BRCA1 (23 variants) or BRCA2 (44 variants) in 62 patients. Thirty-five patients first received a referral to a genetic counselor following TGP with 33 patients completing genetic counseling. Of the 30 patients who pursued germline genetic testing following TGP, 11 were discovered to have a previously unknown germline BRCA PV. Nine of these patients were the first in their family diagnosed with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.CONCLUSION: This study represents one institution's experience with genetic counseling referrals, uptake, and germline results following TGP. For some patients, TGP will be the first indicator of an underlying hereditary condition. Identifying patients with PVs (which may be germline) through TGP is an important new genetic counseling referral tool that can have important implications for the patient and their family.

Background: Cancer genetic testing to assess an individual’s cancer risk and to enable genomics-informed cancer treatment has grown exponentially in the past decade. Because of this continued growth and a shortage of health care workers, there is a need for automated strategies that provide high-quality genetics services to patients to reduce the clinical demand for genetics providers. Conversational agents have shown promise in managing mental health, pain, and other chronic conditions and are increasingly being used in cancer genetic services. However, research on how patients interact with these agents to satisfy their information needs is limited. Objective: Our primary aim is to assess user interactions with a conversational agent for pretest genetics education. Methods: We conducted a feasibility study of user interactions with a conversational agent who delivers pretest genetics education to primary care patients without cancer who are eligible for cancer genetic evaluation. The conversational agent provided scripted content similar to that delivered in a pretest genetic counseling visit for cancer genetic testing. Outside of a core set of information delivered to all patients, users were able to navigate within the chat to request additional content in their areas of interest. An artificial intelligence–based preprogrammed library was also established to allow users to ask open-ended questions to the conversational agent. Transcripts of the interactions were recorded. Here, we describe the information selected, time spent to complete the chat, and use of the open-ended question feature. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative measures, and thematic analyses were used for qualitative responses. Results: We invited 103 patients to participate, of which 88.3% (91/103) were offered access to the conversational agent, 39% (36/91) started the chat, and 32% (30/91) completed the chat. Most users who completed the chat indicated that they wanted to continue with genetic testing (21/30, 70%), few were unsure (9/30, 30%), and no patient declined to move forward with testing. Those who decided to test spent an average of 10 (SD 2.57) minutes on the chat, selected an average of 1.87 (SD 1.2) additional pieces of information, and generally did not ask open-ended questions. Those who were unsure spent 4 more minutes on average (mean 14.1, SD 7.41; P=.03) on the chat, selected an average of 3.67 (SD 2.9) additional pieces of information, and asked at least one open-ended question. Conclusions: The pretest chat provided enough information for most patients to decide on cancer genetic testing, as indicated by the small number of open-ended questions. A subset of participants were still unsure about receiving genetic testing and may require additional education or interpersonal support before making a testing decision. Conversational agents have the potential to become a scalable alternative for pretest genetics education, reducing the clinical demand on genetics providers.

Background: Personal cancer diagnosis and family cancer history factor into which individuals should undergo genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome. Family history is often determined in the research setting through kindreds with disease clusters, or clinically from self‐report. The population prevalence of individuals with diagnostic characteristics and/or family cancer history meeting criteria for HBOC testing is unknown.Methods: Utilizing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry data and a research resource linking registry records to genealogies, the Utah Population Database, the population‐based prevalence of diagnostic and family history characteristics meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for HBOC testing was objectively assessed.Results: Among Utah residents with an incident breast cancer diagnosis 2010‐2015 and evaluable for family history, 21.6% met criteria for testing based on diagnostic characteristics, but the proportion increased to 62.9% when family history was evaluated. The proportion of cases meeting testing criteria at diagnosis was 94% for ovarian cancer, 23% for prostate cancer, and 51.1% for pancreatic cancer. Among an unaffected Utah population of approximately 1.7 million evaluable for family history, 197,601 or 11.6% met testing criteria based on family history.Conclusions: This study quantifies the population‐based prevalence of HBOC criteria using objectively determined genealogy and cancer incidence data. Sporadic breast cancer likely represents a portion of the high prevalence of family cancer history seen in this study. These results underline the importance of establishing presence of a deleterious mutation in an affected family member, per NCCN guidelines, before testing unaffected relatives.

Background and Aims Genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) susceptibility have been shown to play a role in pancreatic cancer susceptibility. Germline genetic testing of pancreatic cancer cases could be beneficial for at-risk relatives with pathogenic variants in established HBOC and CRC genes, but it is unclear what proportion of pancreatic cancer cases harbor pathogenic variants in these genes. Methods 66 pancreatic cancer cases, unselected for family history and diagnosed at the Huntsman Cancer Hospital (HCH), were sequenced on a custom 34-gene panel including known HBOC and CRC genes. A second set of 156 unselected HCH pancreatic cancer cases were sequenced on an expanded 59-gene panel (n=95) or with a custom 14-gene clinical panel (n=61). Sequencing data from both sets of pancreatic cancer cases, the pancreatic cancer cases of the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), and an unselected pancreatic cancer screen from the Mayo Clinic were combined in a meta-analysis to estimate the proportion of carriers with pathogenic and variants of uncertain significance. Results Approximately 8.9% of unselected pancreatic cancer cases at the HCH carried a variant with potential HBOC or CRC screening recommendations. A meta-analysis of unselected pancreatic cancer cases revealed that approximately 10.5% carry a pathogenic variant or HiP-VUS. Conclusion With the inclusion of both HBOC and CRC susceptibility genes in a panel test, unselected pancreatic cancer cases have a high enough percentage of carriers to rationalize genetic testing for identification of variants that could be further used in cascade testing of healthy relatives to increase HBOC and CRC surveillance measures.

Identifying new methods to deliver cancer genetic counseling (GC) are needed to meet the growing interest in BRCA1/2 testing. The goal of this pilot feasibility study was designed to test the initial acceptability of group GC on selected patient outcomes (satisfaction, distress, perceived control) in a breast/ovarian cancer genetics clinic setting. Sixty-five participants at increased risk for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) agreed to participate in self-selected individual or group GC appointments. Forty-nine participants completed all study questionnaires and were included in the analyses. There were significant improvements for participants in both the individual and group GC formats with regard to perceived personal control, general psychological distress and cancer-specific psychological distress scores. Participants in both the individual and group formats reported high satisfaction scores on the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale. Study results suggest that group GC may be feasible and acceptable to high-risk women.