Aims: This study compared facilitators and barriers to genetic testing and determined awareness about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) across young Hispanic and non-Hispanic white (NHW) breast cancer (BC) survivors. Materials and Methods: Women diagnosed with BC of age ≤50 years in 2009-2012 were recruited through the Florida State Cancer Registry to complete a questionnaire. Results: There were 1182 participants of which 61% (174/285) of Hispanic patients, and 65% (580/897) of NHW patients had BC testing. Among untested participants, the most common barriers were lack of testing recommendation (44% Hispanics, 32% NHW; p = 0.02) and cost-related concerns (41% Hispanics, 40% NHW; p = 0.83). Among tested participants, the top facilitators were as follows: (1) “To benefit my family's future” (70% Hispanic, 68% NHW), (2) “My doctor recommended testing” (60% Hispanic, 54% NHW), and (3) “Minimal cost to me” (59% Hispanic, 72% NHW). Only 27% of tested and 15% of untested women were aware of GINA; misuse of test results was reported as a barrier for only 6.5%. Conclusions: Rates of genetic testing recommendation are lower among Hispanics, but both groups reported additional barriers. Most are unaware of GINA, yet misuse is not a highly cited barrier. Findings suggest the need to educate providers on the importance of recommending testing to all who meet criteria; increase awareness of newer options for more affordable testing; and bolster facilitators that may increase testing uptake.

Importance: The reasons underlying racial/ethnic mortality disparities for cancer patients remain poorly understood, especially regarding the role of access to care. Participants: Over five million patients with a primary diagnosis of lung, breast, prostate, colon/rectum, pancreas, ovary, or liver cancer during 2004–2014, were identified from the National Cancer Database. Cox proportional hazards models were applied to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for total mortality associated with race/ethnicity, and access to care related factors (i.e., socioeconomic status [SES], insurance, treating facility, and residential type) for each cancer. Results: Racial/ethnic disparities in total mortality were observed across seven cancers. Compared with non-Hispanic (NH)-white patients, NH-black patients with breast (HR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.26 to 1.29), ovarian (HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.23), prostate (HR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.33), colorectal (HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.12) or pancreatic (HR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.05) cancers had significantly elevated mortality, while Asians (13–31%) and Hispanics (13–19%) had lower mortality for all cancers. Racial/ethnic disparities were observed across all strata of access to care related factors and modified by those factors. NH-black and NH-white disparities were most evident among patients with high SES or those with private insurance, while Hispanic/Asian versus NH-white disparities were more evident among patients with low SES or those with no/poor insurance. Conclusions and Relevance: Racial/ethnic mortality disparities for major cancers exist across all patient groups with different access to care levels. The influence of SES or insurance on mortality disparity follows different patterns for racial/ethnic minorities versus NH-whites. Impact: Our study highlights the need for racial/ethnic-specific strategies to reduce the mortality disparities for major cancers.

Prior studies have suggested the existence of reduced penetrance pathogenic variants (RPPVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) which pose challenges for patient counseling and care. Here, we sought to establish RPPVs as a new category of variants. Candidate BRCA RPPVs provided by two large clinical diagnostic laboratories were compiled to identify those with the highest likelihood of being a RPPV, based on concordant interpretations. Sixteen concordant candidate BRCA RPPVs across both laboratories were systematically assessed. RPPVs included missense, splice site, and frameshift variants. Our study establishes RPPVs as a new class of variants imparting a moderately increased risk of breast cancer, which impacts risk-informed cancer prevention strategies, and provides a framework to standardize interpretation and reporting of BRCA RPPVs. Further work to define clinically meaningful risk thresholds and categories for reporting BRCA RPPVs is needed to personalize cancer risks in conjunction with other risk factors.

Background: Increasing demand for genetic testing for inherited cancer risk coupled with a shortage of providers trained in genetics highlight the potential for automated tools embedded in the clinic process to meet this demand. We developed and tested a scalable, easy-to-use, 12-minute web-based educational tool that included standard pretest genetic counseling elements related to panel-based testing for multiple genes associated with cancer risk. Methods: The tool was viewed by new patients at the Vanderbilt Hereditary Cancer Clinic before meeting with a board-certified genetics professional. Pre- and post-tool surveys measured knowledge, feeling informed/empowered to decide about testing, attitudinal values about genetic testing, and health literacy. Of the initial 100 participants, 50 were randomized to only have knowledge measured on the post-tool survey to assess for a priming effect. Results: Of 360 patients approached, 305 consented and completed both the pre- and post-tool surveys, with a mean age of 47 years, including 80% female patients and 48% patients with cancer. Survey results showed an increase in knowledge and feeling informed/empowered after viewing the tool (P<.001), but no significant change in attitude (P=.64). Post-tool survey data indicated no difference in median knowledge between low and high health literacy groups (P=.30). No priming effect was present among the initial 100 participants (P=.675). Conclusions: Viewing the educational tool resulted in significant gains in knowledge across health literacy levels, and most individuals felt informed and empowered to decide about genetic testing. These findings indicate that the use of an automated pretest genetic counseling tool may help streamline the delivery of genetic services.