Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 859–865 | Cite as

Large, Prospective Analysis of the Reasons Patients Do Not Pursue BRCA Genetic Testing Following Genetic Counseling

  • Sommer Hayden
  • Sarah Mange
  • Debra Duquette
  • Nancie Petrucelli
  • Victoria M. Raymond
  • on behalf of the BRCA Clinical Network Partners
Original Research

Abstract

Genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) identifies high-risk individuals who benefit from enhanced medical management. Not all individuals undergo GT following GC and understanding the reasons why can impact clinical efficiency, reduce GT costs through appropriate identification of high-risk individuals, and demonstrate the value of pre-GT GC. A collaborative project sponsored by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services prospectively collects anonymous data on BRCA-related GC visits performed by providers in Michigan, including demographics, patient/family cancer history, GT results, and reasons for declining GT. From 2008 to 2012, 10,726 patients underwent GC; 3476 (32.4%) did not pursue GT. Primary reasons included: not the best test candidate (28.1%), not clinically indicated (23.3%), and insurance/out of pocket cost concerns (13.6%). Patient disinterest was the primary reason for declining in 17.1%. Insurance/out of pocket cost concerns were the primary reason for not testing in 13.4% of untested individuals with private insurance. Among untested individuals with breast and/or ovarian cancer, 22.5% reported insurance/out of pocket cost concerns as the primary reason for not testing and 6.6% failed to meet Medicare criteria. In a five-year time period, nearly one-third of patients who underwent BRCA GC did not pursue GT. GT was not indicated in almost half of patients. Insurance/out of pocket cost concerns continue to be barriers.

Keywords

Genetic Counseling Genetic Testing Barriers BRCA Insurance Public Health 

References

  1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2005). Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 143(5), 355–61. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16144894
  2. ACMG Board of Directors (2015). Clinical utility of genetic and genomic services: a position statement the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, 17, 505–507.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, K., Calzone, K., Stopfer, J., Fitzgerald, G., Coyne, J., & Weber, B. (2000). Factors associated with decisions about clinical BRCA1/2 testing. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention : A Publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, Cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 9(11), 1251–4. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11097234
  4. Borzekowski, D. L. G., Guan, Y., Smith, K. C., Erby, L. H., & Roter, D. L. (2014). The Angelina effect: immediate reach, grasp, and impact of going public. Genetics in Medicine : Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 16(7), 516–521. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, S., & Parmigiani, G. (2007). Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 25(11), 1329–1333. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.09.1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, S., Iversen, E. S., Friebel, T., Finkelstein, D., Weber, B. L., Eisen, A., … Parmigiani, G. (2006). Characterization of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a large United States sample. Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 24(6), 863–71. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.03.6772
  7. Claus, E. B., Schildkraut, J. M., Thompson, W. D., & Risch, N. J. (1996). The genetic attributable risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer, 77(11), 2318–2324. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960601)77:11<2318::AID-CNCR21>3.0.CO;2-Z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Domchek, S. M., Armstrong, K., & Weber, B. L. (2006). Clinical management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Nature Clinical Practice. Oncology, 3(1), 2–3. doi:10.1038/ncponc0384.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Godard, B., Pratte, A., Dumont, M., Simard-Lebrun, A., & Simard, J. (2007). Factors associated with an individual’s decision to withdraw from genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: implications for counseling. Genetic Testing, 11(1), 45–54. doi:10.1089/gte.2006.9998.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Goelen, G., Rigo, A., Bonduelle, M., & De Grève, J. (1999). Moral concerns of different types of patients in clinical BRCA1/2 gene mutation testing. Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 17(5), 1595–600. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10334549
  11. Hallowell, N., Ardern-Jones, A., Eeles, R., Foster, C., Lucassen, A., Moynihan, C., & Watson, M. (2005). Men’s decision-making about predictive BRCA1/2 testing: the role of family. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14(3), 207–217. doi:10.1007/s10897-005-0384-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hartmann, L. C., Schaid, D. J., Woods, J. E., Crotty, T. P., Myers, J. L., Arnold, P. G., … Jenkins, R. B. (1999). Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 340(2), 77–84. doi:10.1056/NEJM199901143400201
  13. Hartmann, L. C., Sellers, T. A., Schaid, D. J., Frank, T. S., Soderberg, C. L., Sitta, D. L., … Jenkins, R. B. (2001). Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 93(21), 1633–7. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11698567
  14. Kieran, S., Loescher, L. J., & Lim, K. H. (2007). The role of financial factors in acceptance of clinical BRCA genetic testing. Genetic Testing, 11(1), 101–110. doi:10.1089/gte.2006.9999.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. King, M.-C., Marks, J. H., & Mandell, J. B. (2003). Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science (New York, N.Y.), 302(5645), 643–646. doi:10.1126/science.1088759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, J. (2013). Cigna requires genetic counseling to end inappropriate testing. Modern Healthcare. Retrieved from http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20130727/MAGAZINE/307279986
  17. Mai, P. L., Vadaparampil, S. T., Breen, N., McNeel, T. S., Wideroff, L., & Graubard, B. I. (2014). Awareness of cancer susceptibility genetic testing: the 2000, 2005, and 2010 National Health Interview Surveys. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 46(5), 440–448. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.01.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller, C. E., Krautscheid, P., Baldwin, E. E., Tvrdik, T., Openshaw, A. S., Hart, K., & Lagrave, D. (2014). Genetic counselor review of genetic test orders in a reference laboratory reduces unnecessary testing. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, 164A(5), 1094–1101. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.36453.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Olaya, W., Esquivel, P., Wong, J. H., Morgan, J. W., Freeberg, A., Roy-Chowdhury, S., & Lum, S. S. (2009). Disparities in BRCA testing: when insurance coverage is not a barrier. American Journal of Surgery, 198(4), 562–565. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.07.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pal, T., Permuth-Wey, J., Betts, J. A., Krischer, J. P., Fiorica, J., Arango, H., … Sutphen, R. (2005). BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for a large proportion of ovarian carcinoma cases. Cancer, 104(12), 2807–16. doi:10.1002/cncr.21536
  21. 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. doi:10.1093/jnci/djn442.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Ropka, M. E., Wenzel, J., Phillips, E. K., Siadaty, M., & Philbrick, J. T. (2006). Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention : A Publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, Cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 15(5), 840–855. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saslow, D., Boetes, C., Burke, W., Harms, S., Leach, M. O., Lehman, C. D., … Russell, C. A. (2007). American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 57(2), 75–89. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17392385
  24. Thompson, H. S., Valdimarsdottir, H. B., Duteau-Buck, C., Guevarra, J., Bovbjerg, D. H., Richmond-Avellaneda, C., … Offit, K. (2002). Psychosocial predictors of BRCA counseling and testing decisions among urban African-American women. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention : A Publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, Cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 11(12), 1579–85. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12496047

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sommer Hayden
    • 1
  • Sarah Mange
    • 2
  • Debra Duquette
    • 2
  • Nancie Petrucelli
    • 3
  • Victoria M. Raymond
    • 4
  • on behalf of the BRCA Clinical Network Partners
  1. 1.Saint Joseph Mercy HospitalAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Michigan Department of Health and Human ServicesLansingUSA
  3. 3.Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer InstituteDetroitUSA
  4. 4.University of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations