Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 18–28 | Cite as

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

  • Joanne Armstrong
  • Michele Toscano
  • Nancy Kotchko
  • Sue Friedman
  • Marc D. Schwartz
  • Katherine S. Virgo
  • Kristian Lynch
  • James E. Andrews
  • Claudia X. Aguado Loi
  • Joseph E. Bauer
  • Carolina Casares
  • Rachel Threet Teten
  • Matthew R. Kondoff
  • Ashley D. Molina
  • Mehrnaz Abdollahian
  • Lana Brand
  • Gregory S. Walker
  • Rebecca Sutphen
Professional Issues

Abstract

Research to date regarding identification and management of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) in the U.S. has been confined primarily to academic center-based studies with limited patient engagement. To begin to understand and address the current gaps and disparities in delivery of services for the appropriate identification and optimal risk management of individuals with HBOC, we designed and have initiated the American BRCA Outcomes and Utilization of Testing (ABOUT) Study. ABOUT relies on a collaborative patient advocacy, academic and industry partnership to recruit and engage U.S. individuals who are at increased risk for HBOC and investigate their experiences, decisions and outcomes. It utilizes an extensive research infrastructure, including an interactive web-based data system and electronic interfaces for secure online participation and automated data exchange. We describe the novel recruitment approach that was designed for collaboration with a national commercial health plan partner to identify all individuals for whom a healthcare provider orders a BRCA test and mail to each individual an invitation to participate and study packet. The study packet contains detailed information about the study, a baseline questionnaire and informed consent for participation in the study, for release of relevant medical and health plan records and for ongoing research engagement. This approach employs patient-reported, laboratory-reported and health plan-reported outcomes and facilitates longitudinal engagement. We believe that the type of innovative methodology and collaborative framework we have developed for ABOUT is an ideal foundation for a patient-powered research network. This approach can make substantial contributions to identifying current and best practices in HBOC, leading to improved strategies for clinical care and optimal health outcomes among individuals with high inherited risk for cancer.

Keywords

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) BRCA1 BRCA2 BRCA Genetic testing Breast cancer Ovarian cancer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported with funds received through the Aetna Foundation as well as in-kind support from Aetna, USF, FORCE, ACS, Georgetown University Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Emory University Rollins School of Public Health. We would like to thank Deb Duquette and Sarah Mange, from the Michigan Department of Community Health Cancer Genomics Program (MI DCHCGP), and Elizabeth Bourquardez Clark, from USF, for contributing to the review and refinement of this manuscript; Rose Bishop Kovatch, Jana Pruski-Clark, Vilia Corvizon, Jenna McLosky, Beth E. Anderson and Deb Duquette for contributing to the review and refinement of the ABOUT baseline and follow-up questionnaires prior to dissemination; USF undergraduate students who performed systems testing for data entry, checking and cleaning : Ethan Arrington, Chenin Blanco, Dominic Bracero, Bridget Budny, Mitchell Darnell, Barbara DaVilla, Amanda DeRenzis, Bradley Fagerberg, Nicole Fernung, Dana Hobi, Paul Johannes, Sherrie Leon, Pedro Limas, Hannah McGrew, Danielle Melton, Jude Nawlo, Kaajal Patel, Niral A. Patel, Andrianna Santos, Tyler Schaefer, Puja Shah, Jhulianna Vivar, Adam Weaver, and Andreas Zacharopoulos; and especially Aetna members who agreed to participate in the study.

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Sutphen is the President and Chief Medical Officer of a national telephone genetic counseling provider organization, Informed Medical Decisions, Inc.

Joanne Armstrong, Michele Toscano, Nancy Kotchko, Sue Friedman, Marc D. Schwartz, Katherine S. Virgo, Kristian Lynch, James E. Andrews, Claudia X. Aguado Loi, Joseph E. Bauer, Carolina Casares, Rachel Threet Teten, Matthew R. Kondoff, Ashley D. Molina, Mehrnaz Abdollahian, Lana Brand, and Gregory S. Walker declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human Studies and Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. Advice about familial aspects of breast cancer and epithelial ovarian cancer. (2011). National breast cancer centre.Google Scholar
  2. Aetna. (2012). Clinical policy bulletin: BRCA Testing, prophylactic mastectomy, and prophylactic Oophorectomy. Retrieved from http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/200_299/0227.html.
  3. American society of clinical oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. (2003). J Clin Oncol, 21(12), 2397–2406. Atlas.ti.Google Scholar
  4. Begg CB, H. R., Borg, A., Malone, K. E., Concannon, P., Thomas, D. C., Langholz, B., Bernstein, L., Olsen, J. H., Lynch, C. F., Anton-Culver, H., Capanu, M., Liang, X., Hummer, A. J., Sima, C., & Bernstein, J. L. (2008). Variation of breast cancer risk among BRCA1/2 carriers. JAMA, 299(2), 194–201.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Carolina Georgia Center, C. G. N. (2003). Family history survey: national cancer institutes.Google Scholar
  6. Cella, D., Hughes, C., Peterman, A., Chang, C.-H., Peshkin, B. N., Schwartz, M. D., & Lerman, C. (2002). A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the multidimensional impact of cancer risk assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Health Psychology, 21(6), 564–572. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.21.6.564.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, S., & Parmigiani, G. (2007). Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25(11), 1329–1333. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.09.1066.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Croshaw, R. L., Marshall, Megan L., Williams, Tesha L., Erb, Kathleen M., Julian, Thomas B. (2011). Prophylactic and therapeutic breast conservation in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Int. J. Breast Cancer, 2011. doi:10.4061/2011/481563
  9. DeStefano F, W. N., Lux LJ, Lohr KN. (2008). Infrastructure to monitor utilization and outcomes of gene-based applications: an assessment. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality(08-EHC012).Google Scholar
  10. Dillman, D. A. (2011). Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method-2007 update with new internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide: Wiley. com.Google Scholar
  11. Domchek, S. M., Friebel, T. M., Singer, C. F., Evans, D. G., Lynch, H. T., Isaacs, C., & Rebbeck, T. R. (2010). Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA, 304(9), 967–975. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1237.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ford, D. E. D., Bishop, D. T., et al. (1994). Risks of cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Lancet, 343, 692–695.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gail, M. H., Brinton, L. A., Byar, D. P., Corle, D. K., Green, S. B., Schairer, C., & Mulvihill, J. J. (1989). Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 81(24), 1879–1886.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement. (2005). Ann Intern Med, 143(5), 355–361. doi: 143/5/355 [pii]Google Scholar
  15. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. (2005). U.S. Preventive services task force retrieved from http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf05/brcagen/brcagenrs.htm.
  16. Hall, M. J., & Olopade, O. I. (2006). Disparities in genetic testing: thinking outside the BRCA box. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24(14), 2197–2203. doi:10.1200/jco.2006.05.5889.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, J. M., Lee, M. K., Newman, B., Morrow, J. E., Anderson, L. A., Huey, B., & King, M. C. (1990). Linkage of early-onset familial breast cancer to chromosome 17q21. Science, 250(4988), 1684–1689.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. King, M. C., Marks, J. H., & Mandell, J. B. (2003). Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science, 302(5645), 643–646. doi:10.1126/science.1088759.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kurian, A. W., Sigal, B., & Plevritis, S. K. (2010). Survival analysis of cancer risk reduction strategies for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28(2), 222–231.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lerman, C., Narod, S., Schulman, K., et al. (1996). BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer: a prospective study of patient decision making and outcomes. JAMA, 275(24), 1885–1892. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530480027036.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miki, Y., Swensen, J., Shattuck-Eidens, D., Futreal, P. A., Harshman, K., Tavtigian, S., et al. (1994). A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science, 266(5182), 66–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Myriad. (2012). Myriad group announces full year 2012 results. Zurich: Paper presented at the Media & Analyst Conference.Google Scholar
  23. NCCN guidelines version 1.2014: breast and/or ovarian cancer genetic assessment. (2014) (pp. 6): national comprehensive cancer network.Google Scholar
  24. NCCN guidelines version 1.2014: hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer syndrome. (2014) (pp. 11): national comprehensive cancer network.Google Scholar
  25. Genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer: assessment, counseling and testing guidelines (1999). American college of medical genetics foundation.Google Scholar
  26. Anglian Breast Cancer Study Group. (2000). Prevalence and penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based series of breast cancer cases. British Journal of Cancer, 83(10), 1301–1308. doi:10.1054/bjoc.2000.1407.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rebbeck, T. R., Kauff, N. D., & Domchek, S. M. (2009). Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 101(2), 80–87.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Risch, H. A., McLaughlin, J. R., Cole, D. E., Rosen, B., Bradley, L., Kwan, E., & Narod, S. A. (2001). Prevalence and penetrance of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population series of 649 women with ovarian cancer. American Journal of Human Genetics, 68(3), 700–710.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rockhill, B., Spiegelman, D., Byrne, C., Hunter, D. J., & Colditz, G. A. (2001). Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 93(5), 358–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Satagopan, J. M., Boyd, J., Kauff, N. D., Robson, M., Scheuer, L., Narod, S., & Offit, K. (2002). Ovarian cancer risk in Ashkenazi Jewish carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Clinical Cancer Research, 8(12), 3776–3781.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwartz, M. D., Isaacs, C., Graves, K. D., Poggi, E., Peshkin, B. N., Gell, C., & Perley, L. (2012). Long-term outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing: risk reduction and surveillance. Cancer, 118(2), 510–517. doi:10.1002/cncr.26294.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. SEER stat fact sheet: breast. (2010). National Cancer Institute.Google Scholar
  33. Struewing, J. P., Hartge, P., Wacholder, S., Baker, S. M., Berlin, M., McAdams, M., & Tucker, M. A. (1997). The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. New England Journal of Medicine, 336(20), 1401–1408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tyrer, J., Duffy, S. W., & Cuzick, J. (2004). A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Statistics in Medicine, 23(7), 1111–1130. doi:10.1002/sim.1668.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Whittemore, A. S., Gong, G., & Itnyre, J. (1997). Prevalence and contribution of BRCA1 mutations in breast cancer and ovarian cancer: results from three U.S. population-based case–control studies of ovarian cancer. American Journal of Human Genetics, 60(3), 496–504.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wooster, R., Neuhausen, S. L., Mangion, J., Quirk, Y., Ford, D., Collins, N., et al. (1994). Localization of a breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA2, to chromosome 13q12-13. Science, 265(5181), 2088–2090.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wooster, R., Bignell, G., Lancaster, J., Swift, S., Seal, S., Mangion, J., & Micklem, G. (1995). Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature, 378(6559), 789–792.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanne Armstrong
    • 1
  • Michele Toscano
    • 1
  • Nancy Kotchko
    • 1
  • Sue Friedman
    • 2
  • Marc D. Schwartz
    • 3
  • Katherine S. Virgo
    • 4
    • 5
  • Kristian Lynch
    • 6
  • James E. Andrews
    • 7
  • Claudia X. Aguado Loi
    • 8
  • Joseph E. Bauer
    • 4
  • Carolina Casares
    • 4
  • Rachel Threet Teten
    • 6
  • Matthew R. Kondoff
    • 6
  • Ashley D. Molina
    • 6
  • Mehrnaz Abdollahian
    • 9
  • Lana Brand
    • 7
    • 10
  • Gregory S. Walker
    • 4
  • Rebecca Sutphen
    • 6
  1. 1.Women’s Health, AetnaHartfordUSA
  2. 2.Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Inc (FORCE)TampaUSA
  3. 3.Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer CenterGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.American Cancer Society, IncAtlantaUSA
  5. 5.School of Public HealthEmory University RollinsAtlantaUSA
  6. 6.Morsani College of Medicine Epidemiology CenterUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  7. 7.School of InformationUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  8. 8.Department of Child and Family StudiesUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  9. 9.Department of Industrial and Management Systems EngineeringUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  10. 10.Northeast Georgia Health SystemGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations