Utilization and Outcomes of BRCA Genetic Testing and Counseling in a National Commercially Insured Population: The ABOUT Study | Breast Cancer | JAMA Oncology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.207.129.82. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Antoniou  A, Pharoah  PD, Narod  S,  et al.  Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies.  Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72(5):1117-1130.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Chen  S, Parmigiani  G.  Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(11):1329-1333.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Friedman  S, Sutphen  R, Steligo  K.  Confronting Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Identify Your Risk, Understand Your Options, Change Your Destiny.1st ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2012:32.
4.
Lindor  NM, McMaster  ML, Lindor  CJ, Greene  MH.  Concise handbook of familial cancer susceptibility syndromes—second edition.  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr.2008(38):3-93.Google Scholar
5.
Whittemore  AS, Gong  G, Itnyre  J.  Prevalence and contribution of BRCA1 mutations in breast cancer and ovarian cancer: results from three US population-based case-control studies of ovarian cancer.  Am J Hum Genet. 1997;60(3):496-504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Struewing  JP, Hartge  P, Wacholder  S,  et al.  The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews.  N Engl J Med. 1997;336(20):1401-1408.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Risch  HA, McLaughlin  JR, Cole  DE,  et al.  Prevalence and penetrance of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population series of 649 women with ovarian cancer.  Am J Hum Genet. 2001;68(3):700-710.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Begg  CB, Haile  RW, Borg  A,  et al.  Variation of breast cancer risk among BRCA1/2 carriers.  JAMA. 2008;299(2):194-201.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Ford  D, Easton  DF, Bishop  DT, Narod  SA, Goldgar  DE; Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.  Risks of cancer in BRCA1-mutation carriers.  Lancet. 1994;343(8899):692-695.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Croshaw  RL, Marshall  ML, Williams  TL, Erb  KM, Julian  TB.  Prophylactic and therapeutic breast conservation in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.  Int J Breast Cancer. 2011;2011:481563.Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Kurian  AW, Sigal  BM, Plevritis  SK. Survival analysis of cancer risk reduction strategies for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.  J Clin Oncol.2010;28(2):222-231.Google ScholarCrossref
12.
Rebbeck  TR, Kauff  ND, Domchek  SM.  Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(2):80-87.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Moyer  VA; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.  Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(4):271-281.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines Version 1.2014: Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer Genetic Assessment. 2014. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/genetics_screening.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2014.
15.
King  MC, Marks  JH, Mandell  JB; New York Breast Cancer Study Group.  Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2.  Science. 2003;302(5645):643-646.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
DeStefano  F, Whitehead  N, Lux  LJ, Lohr  KN. Infrastructure to monitor utilization and outcomes of gene-based applications: an assessment. AHRQ Pub. No. 08-EHC012. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/GenomicsDatabase.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2015.
17.
Armstrong  J, Toscano  M, Kotchko  N,  et al.  American BRCA Outcomes and Utilization of Testing (ABOUT) study: a pragmatic research model that incorporates personalized medicine/patient-centered outcomes in a real world setting.  J Genet Couns. 2015;24(1):18-28.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Fodor  FH, Weston  A, Bleiweiss  IJ,  et al.  Frequency and carrier risk associated with common BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish breast cancer patients.  Am J Hum Genet. 1998;63(1):45-51.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Hartge  P, Struewing  JP, Wacholder  S, Brody  LC, Tucker  MA.  The prevalence of common BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among Ashkenazi Jews.  Am J Hum Genet. 1999;64(4):963-970.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Metcalfe  KA, Poll  A, Royer  R,  et al.  Screening for founder mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in unselected Jewish women.  J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(3):387-391.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Roa  BB, Boyd  AA, Volcik  K, Richards  CS.  Ashkenazi Jewish population frequencies for common mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2.  Nat Genet. 1996;14(2):185-187.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Office of Management and Budget. Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. 1997. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards. Accessed May 1, 2015.
23.
Lerman  C, Biesecker  B, Benkendorf  JL,  et al.  Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89(2):148-157.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Hall  MJ, Olopade  OI.  Disparities in genetic testing: thinking outside the BRCA box.  J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(14):2197-2203.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Myriad Genetics’ CEO presents at 30th Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference [transcript]. 2012. http://seekingalpha.com/article/319058-myriad-genetics-ceo-presents-at-30th-annual-j-p-morgan-healthcare-conference-transcript. Accessed May 1, 2015.
26.
Christie  J, Quinn  GP, Malo  T,  et al.  Cognitive and psychological impact of BRCA genetic counseling in before and after definitive surgery breast cancer patients.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(13):4003-4011.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Jbilou  J, Halilem  N, Blouin-Bougie  J, Amara  N, Landry  R, Simard  J.  Medical genetic counseling for breast cancer in primary care: a synthesis of major determinants of physicians’ practices in primary care settings.  Public Health Genomics. 2014;17(4):190-208.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Wood  ME, Kadlubek  P, Pham  TH,  et al.  Quality of cancer family history and referral for genetic counseling and testing among oncology practices: a pilot test of quality measures as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.  J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(8):824-829.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Shields  AE, Burke  W, Levy  DE.  Differential use of available genetic tests among primary care physicians in the United States: results of a national survey.  Genet Med. 2008;10(6):404-414.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Suther  S, Goodson  P.  Barriers to the provision of genetic services by primary care physicians: a systematic review of the literature.  Genet Med. 2003;5(2):70-76.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2010 Summary Tables. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2010_namcs_web_tables.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2015.
32.
Hiraki  S, Rinella  ES, Schnabel  F, Oratz  R, Ostrer  H.  Cancer risk assessment using genetic panel testing: considerations for clinical application.  J Genet Couns. 2014;23(4):604-617.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Ralph  J, Coates  P.  Counseling US Women on BRCA Testing, a New Healthy People 2020 Objective: Findings From the National Health Interview Survey, 2000-2005. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Community Health Promoting Cancer Genomics Best Practives Steering Committee; 2010.
34.
Reinke  T. Cigna turns to genetic counselors. Managed Care. 2014. http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/2014/2/cigna-turns-genetic-counselors. Accessed May 1, 2015.
35.
Schwartz  MD, Valdimarsdottir  HB, Peshkin  BN,  et al.  Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(7):618-626.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
December 2015

Utilization and Outcomes of BRCA Genetic Testing and Counseling in a National Commercially Insured Population: The ABOUT Study

Author Affiliations
  • 1Aetna, Hartford, Connecticut
  • 2Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Inc (FORCE), Tampa, Florida
  • 3Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
  • 4School of Public Health, Emory University Rollins, Atlanta, Georgia
  • 5Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa
  • 6School of Information, University of South Florida, Tampa
  • 7Department of Community and Family Health, University of South Florida, Tampa
  • 8American Cancer Society Inc, Atlanta, Georgia
  • 9Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa
JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(9):1251-1260. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3048
Abstract

Importance  BRCA genetic testing has substantial public health impact, yet little is known of the real-world experiences of the more than 100 000 Americans undergoing testing annually.

Objective  To identify factors associated with use of BRCA testing, assess whether delivery of genetic counseling and testing services adheres to professional guidelines, and measure the impact on patient-reported outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants  The American BRCA Outcomes and Utilization of Testing (ABOUT) Study analyzed data from a consecutive national series of 11 159 women whose clinicians ordered BRCA testing between December 2011 and December 2012. Aetna mailed recruitment information across the United States to commercial health plan members whose clinicians had ordered BRCA testing. A total of 3874 women (34.7%) completed questionnaires. Deidentified clinician-reported data from all respondents and a random sample of 2613 nonrespondents were also analyzed.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The proportion of eligible participants who met testing criteria and respondents’ report of receiving genetic counseling by a genetics clinician and its association with BRCA knowledge, understanding, and satisfaction were assessed.

Results  Among 3628 women respondents whose clinicians ordered comprehensive BRCA testing, most were white non-Hispanic (2502 [69.0%]), college educated (2953 [81.4%]), married (2751 [75.8%]), and had higher incomes (2011 [55.4%]). Approximately 16.4% (596) did not meet testing criteria. Mutations were identified in 161 (5.3%) of these women who received comprehensive testing. Only 1334 (36.8%) reported receiving genetic counseling from a genetics clinician prior to testing; the lowest rates (130 [12.3%]) were among patients of obstetrician/gynecologists. The most commonly reported reason for not receiving this clinical service was lack of clinician recommendation. Those who received it demonstrated greater knowledge about BRCA (mean score difference adjusted for demographics and clinician specialty, β = 0.99 [95% CI, 0.83-1.14]; P <.001) and expressed greater understanding (β = 0.47 [95% CI, 0.41-0.54]; P <.001) and satisfaction (β = 2.21 [95% CI, 1.60-2.81]; P <.001).

Conclusions and Relevance  Despite improved patient knowledge, understanding, and satisfaction among patients who receive genetic counseling provided by a genetics clinician, as well as multiple guidelines emphasizing the importance of genetic counseling, most US women undergoing BRCA genetic testing do not receive this clinical service. Lack of physician recommendation is the most commonly reported reason. These findings demonstrate important gaps in clinical genetics services. Recently mandated coverage of genetic counseling services as a preventive service without patient cost sharing should contribute to improving clinical genetics services and associated outcomes in the future.

×