Jordon B Ritchie1, Brandon M Welch1,2, Caitlin G Allen3, Lewis J Frey1, Heath Morrison1, Joshua D Schiffman4, Alexander V Alekseyenko1, Brian Dean5, Chanita Hughes Halbert1,2,6, Cecelia Bellcross7. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. 2. Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. 3. Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 4. Oncological Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 5. Computer Science, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. 7. Department of Human Genetics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists lack time and training to appropriately identify patients at increased risk for hereditary cancer using family health history (FHx) and clinical practice guideline (CPG) criteria. We built a tool, "ItRunsInMyFamily" (ItRuns) that automates FHx collection and risk assessment using CPGs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ItRuns by measuring the level of concordance in referral patterns for genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT) between the CPGs as applied by the tool and genetic counselors (GCs), in comparison to oncologists and PCPs. The extent to which non-GCs are discordant with CPGs is a gap that health information technology, such as ItRuns, can help close to facilitate the identification of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer. METHODS: We curated 18 FHx cases and surveyed GCs and non-GCs (oncologists and PCPs) to assess concordance with ItRuns CPG criteria for referring patients for GC/GT. Percent agreement was used to describe concordance, and logistic regression to compare providers and the tool's concordance with CPG criteria. RESULTS: GCs had the best overall concordance with the CPGs used in ItRuns at 82.2%, followed by oncologists with 66.0% and PCPs with 60.6%. GCs were significantly more likely to concur with CPGs (OR = 4.04, 95% CI = 3.35-4.89) than non-GCs. All providers had higher concordance with CPGs for FHx cases that met the criteria for genetic counseling/testing than for cases that did not. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: The risk assessment provided by ItRuns was highly concordant with that of GC's, particularly for at-risk individuals. The use of such technology-based tools improves efficiency and can lead to greater numbers of at-risk individuals accessing genetic counseling, testing, and mutation-based interventions to improve health.
INTRODUCTION: Primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists lack time and training to appropriately identify patients at increased risk for hereditary cancer using family health history (FHx) and clinical practice guideline (CPG) criteria. We built a tool, "ItRunsInMyFamily" (ItRuns) that automates FHx collection and risk assessment using CPGs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ItRuns by measuring the level of concordance in referral patterns for genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT) between the CPGs as applied by the tool and genetic counselors (GCs), in comparison to oncologists and PCPs. The extent to which non-GCs are discordant with CPGs is a gap that health information technology, such as ItRuns, can help close to facilitate the identification of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer. METHODS: We curated 18 FHx cases and surveyed GCs and non-GCs (oncologists and PCPs) to assess concordance with ItRuns CPG criteria for referring patients for GC/GT. Percent agreement was used to describe concordance, and logistic regression to compare providers and the tool's concordance with CPG criteria. RESULTS: GCs had the best overall concordance with the CPGs used in ItRuns at 82.2%, followed by oncologists with 66.0% and PCPs with 60.6%. GCs were significantly more likely to concur with CPGs (OR = 4.04, 95% CI = 3.35-4.89) than non-GCs. All providers had higher concordance with CPGs for FHx cases that met the criteria for genetic counseling/testing than for cases that did not. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: The risk assessment provided by ItRuns was highly concordant with that of GC's, particularly for at-risk individuals. The use of such technology-based tools improves efficiency and can lead to greater numbers of at-risk individuals accessing genetic counseling, testing, and mutation-based interventions to improve health.
Authors: Douglas K Owens; Karina W Davidson; Alex H Krist; Michael J Barry; Michael Cabana; Aaron B Caughey; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Lori Pbert; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Chien-Wen Tseng; John B Wong Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christopher P Childers; Kimberly K Childers; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; James Macinko Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stephanie A Cohen; Angela Bradbury; Vida Henderson; Kent Hoskins; Erica Bednar; Banu K Arun Journal: Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Date: 2019-05-17
Authors: Hetal S Vig; Joanne Armstrong; Brian L Egleston; Carla Mazar; Michele Toscano; Angela R Bradbury; Mary B Daly; Neal J Meropol Journal: Genet Test Mol Biomarkers Date: 2009-12
Authors: Brandon M Welch; Caitlin G Allen; Jordon B Ritchie; Heath Morrison; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Joshua D Schiffman Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-09
Authors: Jordon B Ritchie; Cecelia Bellcross; Caitlin G Allen; Lewis Frey; Heath Morrison; Joshua D Schiffman; Brandon M Welch Journal: Hered Cancer Clin Pract Date: 2021-07-17 Impact factor: 2.857
Authors: Jordon B Ritchie; Lewis J Frey; Jean-Baptiste Lamy; Cecelia Bellcross; Heath Morrison; Joshua D Schiffman; Brandon M Welch Journal: JMIR Cancer Date: 2022-01-31