PURPOSE: This study describes practitioner knowledge and practices related to BRCA testing and management and explores how training may contribute to practice patterns. METHODS: A survey was mailed to all BRCA testing providers in Florida listed in a publicly available directory. Descriptive statistics characterized participants and their responses. RESULTS: Of the 87 respondents, most were community-based physicians or nurse practitioners. Regarding BRCA mutations, the majority (96%) recognized paternal inheritance and 61% accurately estimated mutation prevalence. For a 35-year-old unaffected BRCA mutation carrier, the majority followed national management guidelines. However, 65% also recommended breast ultrasonography. Fewer than 40% recognized the need for comprehensive rearrangement testing when BRACAnalysis(®) was negative in a woman at 30% risk. Finally, fewer than 15% recognized appropriate testing for a BRCA variant of uncertain significance. Responses appeared to be positively impacted by presence and type of cancer genetics training. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample of providers who order BRCA testing, knowledge gaps in BRCA prevalence estimates and appropriate screening, testing, and results interpretation were identified. Our data suggest the need to increase regulation and oversight of genetic testing services at a policy level, and are consistent with case reports that reveal liability risks when genetic testing is conducted without adequate knowledge and training.
PURPOSE: This study describes practitioner knowledge and practices related to BRCA testing and management and explores how training may contribute to practice patterns. METHODS: A survey was mailed to all BRCA testing providers in Florida listed in a publicly available directory. Descriptive statistics characterized participants and their responses. RESULTS: Of the 87 respondents, most were community-based physicians or nurse practitioners. Regarding BRCA mutations, the majority (96%) recognized paternal inheritance and 61% accurately estimated mutation prevalence. For a 35-year-old unaffected BRCA mutation carrier, the majority followed national management guidelines. However, 65% also recommended breast ultrasonography. Fewer than 40% recognized the need for comprehensive rearrangement testing when BRACAnalysis(®) was negative in a woman at 30% risk. Finally, fewer than 15% recognized appropriate testing for a BRCA variant of uncertain significance. Responses appeared to be positively impacted by presence and type of cancer genetics training. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample of providers who order BRCA testing, knowledge gaps in BRCA prevalence estimates and appropriate screening, testing, and results interpretation were identified. Our data suggest the need to increase regulation and oversight of genetic testing services at a policy level, and are consistent with case reports that reveal liability risks when genetic testing is conducted without adequate knowledge and training.
Authors: Susan Thomas Vadaparampil; Louise Wideroff; Lorayn Olson; K Viswanath; Andrew N Freedman Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Terrance L Albrecht; John C Ruckdeschel; Fountain L Ray; Ben J Pethe; Dawn L Riddle; Joan Strohm; Louis A Penner; Michael D Coovert; Gwendolyn Quinn; Christina G Blanchard Journal: Behav Res Methods Date: 2005-02
Authors: Bronson D Riley; Julie O Culver; Cécile Skrzynia; Leigha A Senter; June A Peters; Josephine W Costalas; Faith Callif-Daley; Sherry C Grumet; Katherine S Hunt; Rebecca S Nagy; Wendy C McKinnon; Nancie M Petrucelli; Robin L Bennett; Angela M Trepanier Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2011-12-02 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Inge-Marie A Obdeijn; Claudette E Loo; Adriana J Rijnsburger; Martin N J M Wasser; Elisabeth Bergers; Theo Kok; Jan G M Klijn; Carla Boetes Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Mary B Daly; Robert Pilarski; Jennifer E Axilbund; Saundra S Buys; Beth Crawford; Susan Friedman; Judy E Garber; Carolyn Horton; Virginia Kaklamani; Catherine Klein; Wendy Kohlmann; Allison Kurian; Jennifer Litton; Lisa Madlensky; P Kelly Marcom; Sofia D Merajver; Kenneth Offit; Tuya Pal; Boris Pasche; Gwen Reiser; Kristen Mahoney Shannon; Elizabeth Swisher; Nicoleta C Voian; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Alison Whelan; Georgia L Wiesner; Mary A Dwyer; Rashmi Kumar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: D M Eccles; G Mitchell; A N A Monteiro; R Schmutzler; F J Couch; A B Spurdle; E B Gómez-García Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Thomas B Silverman; Gilad J Kuperman; Alejandro Vanegas; Margaret Sin; Jill Dimond; Katherine D Crew; Rita Kukafka Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Anita Y Kinney; Rachel Howell; Rachel Ruckman; Jean A McDougall; Tawny W Boyce; Belinda Vicuña; Ji-Hyun Lee; Dolores D Guest; Randi Rycroft; Patricia A Valverde; Kristina M Gallegos; Angela Meisner; Charles L Wiggins; Antoinette Stroup; Lisa E Paddock; Scott T Walters Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Charles W Drescher; J David Beatty; Robert Resta; M Robyn Andersen; Kate Watabayashi; Jason Thorpe; Sarah Hawley; Hannah Purkey; Jessica Chubak; Nancy Hanson; Diana S M Buist; Nicole Urban Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 6.860