Pilot implementation study of a default genetic referral process for patients with young-onset colorectal cancer.

Authors

null

Kelsey S. Lau-Min

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA

Kelsey S. Lau-Min, Shavon E. Rochester, Megan Grabill, Jessica M. Long, Danielle Mckenna, Jacqueline Powers, Leland Boisseau, Peter Edward Gabriel, Randall A. Oyer, Susan M. Domchek, Steven Joffe, Katharine A. Rendle, Katherine L. Nathanson, Bryson W Katona

Organizations

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, Mixed Methods Research Lab, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, Penn Medicine - Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health, Lancaster, PA, Basser Center for BRCA, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

Research Funding

Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology

Background: Young-onset colorectal cancer (yCRC) diagnosed under age 50 is increasing at alarming rates, with >75% of young-onset cases occurring in patients between 40-49 years old. Although national guidelines recommend germline genetic risk evaluations for all patients with yCRC, multiple studies have shown suboptimal rates of guideline-recommended genetic evaluations. Methods: We conducted a pilot implementation study of a default genetic referral process for patients diagnosed with CRC between ages 40-49 from 1/2019-4/2022 at five hospitals in an academic health system. Patients previously referred to genetics were analyzed as a historical comparator cohort. In the intervention cohort, a research coordinator notified patients and their oncologists of their eligibility for a default genetic referral via an electronic patient portal message or telephone call, after which all patients who did not opt out within two weeks were referred for genetic counseling, testing, and result disclosure as per usual care. The primary outcome was feasibility, defined as a ≥60% referral rate; secondary outcomes included the proportion of genetic referrals that were scheduled, completed, and resulted in testing within three months of referral. Semi-structured exit interviews were conducted with a subset of patients and oncologists to assess attitudes toward the default genetic referral process. Results: We identified 128 patients with yCRC; 75 (59%) had previously been referred to genetics and were assigned to the historical cohort. There were no significant differences in sex, race, or ethnicity between the historical and intervention cohorts. All 10 patients with mismatch repair deficient tumors had previously been referred to genetics. Of the 53 patients in the intervention cohort, 49 (92%) were referred to genetics after one oncologist opted out on behalf of an international patient due to financial concerns and three patients requested to discuss with their oncologist before being referred. Of the patients who were referred, 38 (78%) were scheduled, 22 (45%) completed genetic counseling, and 13 (27%) underwent testing within three months of referral. Reasons for failing to complete the germline genetic risk evaluation process included lack of interest, competing priorities, communication/scheduling challenges, and failure to return saliva-based genetic testing kits. In exit interviews with 10 patients who completed testing and 10 oncologists, participants reported finding the default genetic referral process to be acceptable and feasible to implement. Conclusions: A default genetic referral process is feasible and results in a high referral rate for patients with yCRC, but subsequent scheduling, evaluation, and testing rates remain suboptimal. Multilevel implementation strategies are needed to address the patient, clinician, and system barriers identified in this study. Clinical trial information: NCT05018156.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session A

Track

Quality, Safety, and Implementation Science,Cost, Value, and Policy,Patient Experience,Survivorship

Sub Track

Quality Improvement Research and Implementation Science

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT05018156

Citation

JCO Oncol Pract 19, 2023 (suppl 11; abstr 429)

DOI

10.1200/OP.2023.19.11_suppl.429

Abstract #

429

Poster Bd #

J11

Abstract Disclosures

Funded by Conquer Cancer

Similar Abstracts

Abstract

2022 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium

Pathogenic variants among Mexican patients with colorectal cancer referred for genetic cancer risk assessment.

First Author: Jose Luis Rodriguez Olivares

Abstract

2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium

Identification of dMMR in metastatic colorectal and non-colorectal cancers in a private Mexican institution.

First Author: Georgina Filio

Abstract

2024 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Improved access to genetics for individuals with potential germline mutations identified on somatic testing.

First Author: Elizabeth Manderski

Abstract

2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium

The TGF-beta pathway alterations in young-onset colorectal cancer.

First Author: Deniz Can Guven