Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2016

01-10-2016 | Epidemiology

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

Authors: Stephanie A. Cohen, Dawn M. Nixon

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
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
2.
Borzekowski DLG et al (2014) The Angelina effect: immediate reach, grasp, and impact of going public. Genet Med 16(7):516–521CrossRefPubMed
3.
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
4.
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
5.
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
6.
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
7.
Thakker RV et al (2012) clinical practice guidelines for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). J Clin Endocr Metab 97(9):2990–3011CrossRefPubMed
8.
Syngal S et al (2015) ACG clinical guideline: genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol 110(2):223–262CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
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.
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.
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.
22.
23.
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
Metadata
Title
A collaborative approach to cancer risk assessment services using genetic counselor extenders in a multi-system community hospital
Authors
Stephanie A. Cohen
Dawn M. Nixon
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3964-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2016 Go to the issue

Epidemiology

A prospective study of endometriosis and risk of benign breast disease

Clinical trial

BIRC5 (survivin): a pejorative prognostic marker in stage II/III breast cancer with no response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Epidemiology

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

Clinical trial

Genomic profiling of breast cancer in African-American women using MammaPrint

Epidemiology

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

Preclinical study

Association study confirms two susceptibility loci for breast cancer in Chinese Han women
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits