Genetic counseling and testing rates among community cancer programs for patients with breast cancer following site-directed quality improvement.
Authors: Leigh Boehmer, Latha Shivakumar, Christine B. Weldon, Julia Rachel Trosman, Stephanie A. Cohen, Dawn Nixon, Zohra Ali-Khan Catts, Susan Miesfeldt, Stephanie Wiryaman, Lorraine Tafra, Lisa Muto, Natalie Fadrowski, Melissa C. Hulvat, Tiana Pallister, Catherine Gaines, Charles Hendrix Shelton
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2021)

10529 Background: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend testing for highly penetrant breast/ovarian cancer genes in several scenarios, including women with early-onset (≤ 45 years) or metastatic HER-2 negative breast cancer regardless of family history. A 2018 Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) survey (N = 95) showed that &gt; 80% of respondents reported ≤ 50% testing rate of patients with breast cancer who met guidelines. To improve rates of genetic counseling(GC)/testing, ACCC partnered with 15 community cancer programs to support site-directed quality improvement (QI) interventions. Methods: Pre- and post-intervention data from 9/15 partner programs for genetically at-risk women with early-onset or HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were analyzed. Pre-intervention data were collected between 01/01/2017 and 06/30/2019 while post-intervention data were collected as early as 07/01/2019 and as late as 10/01/2020. QI project scope ranged from creation of testing eligibility education to implementation of a virtual GC clinic. De-identified data collected included: family history documentation; GC appointment; test results; and timing of results relative to surgical date. Results: The pre-intervention cohort included 2691 women and the post- cohort included 3104 women who were eligible for GC. Early-onset patients in the post-intervention group attended a GC appointment 83% (331/401) of the time and 74% (296/401) had genetic test results, with 92% (271/296) receiving results before surgery. Sixty-one percent (1387/2267) of women with HER-2 negative MBC in the post-intervention group received GC, compared to 36% (658/1845) in the pre-intervention group. There was an overall increase in the number of MBC patients with documented test results following GC in the post-intervention cohort (55% (1243/2267) versus 15% (273/1845); p &lt; 0.0001). Rates of GC appointments improved overall, regardless of family history documentation. Rates among those with a documented high-risk family history improved from 57% (729/1284) to 85% (1485/1741) following QI interventions (p &lt; 0.0001). There was also a significantly higher rate of GC provided in the post-intervention group among women with negative family histories (40% (462/1155) versus 23% (181/778); p &lt; 0.0001). GC also increased from 6% (35/629) to 45% (94/208) of women in the post-intervention cohort with no documentation of family history (p &lt; 0.0001). Conclusions: Genetic testing is underutilized in women with breast cancer. Significant improvement was achieved with QI initiatives specifically designed to target easily identified populations meeting guidelines for GC/testing. This project demonstrates the importance of attention to practice-directed strategies aimed at improving identification of risk as well as follow through to GC/testing.