BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorses routine screening for genetic risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer as a component of primary health care. Implementation of this recommendation may prove challenging, especially in clinics serving disadvantaged communities. METHODS: The authors tested the feasibility of implementing the USPSTF mandate at a federally qualified health center (FQHC) to identify women who were eligible for genetic counseling (GC). A 12-month usual-care phase was followed by a 12-month intervention phase, during which time cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) was systematically performed for all women aged 25 to 69 years who presented for an annual examination. Women who were eligible for GC were recruited to participate in the study. RESULTS: After initiating CGRA, 112 women who were eligible for GC consented to study participation, and 56% of them received a referral for GC from their primary care physician. A subgroup of 50 participants were seen by the same primary care physician during both the usual-care and intervention phases. None of these patients was referred for GC during usual care, compared with 64% after the initiation of CGRA (P < .001). Only 16% of referred participants attended a GC session. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing USPSTF recommendations for CGRA as a standard component of primary health care in FQHCs is feasible and improves referral of minority women for GC, but more work is needed to understand the beliefs and barriers that prevent many underserved women from accessing cancer genetic services.
BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorses routine screening for genetic risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer as a component of primary health care. Implementation of this recommendation may prove challenging, especially in clinics serving disadvantaged communities. METHODS: The authors tested the feasibility of implementing the USPSTF mandate at a federally qualified health center (FQHC) to identify women who were eligible for genetic counseling (GC). A 12-month usual-care phase was followed by a 12-month intervention phase, during which time cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) was systematically performed for all women aged 25 to 69 years who presented for an annual examination. Women who were eligible for GC were recruited to participate in the study. RESULTS: After initiating CGRA, 112 women who were eligible for GC consented to study participation, and 56% of them received a referral for GC from their primary care physician. A subgroup of 50 participants were seen by the same primary care physician during both the usual-care and intervention phases. None of these patients was referred for GC during usual care, compared with 64% after the initiation of CGRA (P < .001). Only 16% of referred participants attended a GC session. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing USPSTF recommendations for CGRA as a standard component of primary health care in FQHCs is feasible and improves referral of minority women for GC, but more work is needed to understand the beliefs and barriers that prevent many underserved women from accessing cancer genetic services.
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Mirar Bristol; Susan M Domchek; Peter W Groeneveld; Younji Kim; U Nkiru Motanya; Judy A Shea; Katrina Armstrong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Celia P Kaplan; Jennifer Livaudais-Toman; Jeffrey A Tice; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven E Gregorich; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Rena J Pasick; Alice Chen; Jessica Quinn; Leah S Karliner Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: J P Costantino; M H Gail; D Pee; S Anderson; C K Redmond; J Benichou; H S Wieand Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-09-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Susan M Domchek; Andrea Eisen; Kathleen Calzone; Jill Stopfer; Anne Blackwood; Barbara L Weber Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1989-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: John M Quillin; Alexander H Krist; Maria Gyure; Rosalie Corona; Vivian Rodriguez; Joseph Borzelleca; Joann N Bodurtha Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2013-07-20
Authors: Wylie Burke; Julie Culver; Linda Pinsky; Sarah Hall; Susan E Reynolds; Yutaka Yasui; Nancy Press Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Vida Henderson; Shaila M Strayhorn; Nyahne Q Bergeron; Desmona C Strahan; Pamela S Ganschow; Aditya S Khanna; Karriem Watson; Kent Hoskins; Yamile Molina Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2022 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Rita Kukafka; Samuel Pan; Thomas Silverman; Tianmai Zhang; Wendy K Chung; Mary Beth Terry; Elaine Fleck; Richard G Younge; Meghna S Trivedi; Julia E McGuinness; Ting He; Jill Dimond; Katherine D Crew Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Candice Schwartz; Ifeanyi Beverly Chukwudozie; Silvia Tejeda; Ganga Vijayasiri; Ivy Abraham; Mylene Remo; Hiral A Shah; Maria Rojas; Alicia Carillo; Loraine Moreno; Richard B Warnecke; Kent F Hoskins Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-09-01
Authors: Joel E Pacyna; Gabriel Q Shaibi; Alex Lee; Jamie O Byrne; Idali Cuellar; Erica J Sutton; Valentina Hernandez; Noralane M Lindor; Davinder Singh; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 8.822