Genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice: systematic review of tools available, clinician attitudes, and patient outcomes

Abstract

BackgroundA growing demand for cancer genetic services has led to suggestions for the involvement of GPs. How, and in which conditions, they can be involved, and whether there are important barriers to implementation should be ascertained.AimTo review the tools available, clinician attitudes and experiences, and the effects on patients of genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice.Design and settingSystematic review of papers published worldwide between 1996 and 2017.MethodThe MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases and grey literature were searched for entries dating from January 1996 to December 2017. Study quality was assessed with relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool checklists and a narrative synthesis of findings was conducted.ResultsIn total, 40 studies were included in the review. A variety of testing and screening tools were available for genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice, principally for breast, breast–ovarian, and colorectal cancer risk. GPs often reported low knowledge and confidence to engage with genetic cancer risk assessment; however, despite time pressures and concerns about confidentiality and the impact of results on family members, some recognised the potential importance relating to such a development of the GP’s role. Studies found few reported benefits for patients. Concerns about negative impacts on patient anxiety and cancer worries were largely not borne out.ConclusionGPs may have a potential role in identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer that can be facilitated by family-history tools. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the implementation of population-wide screening for genetic cancer risk, especially given the competing demands of general practice.

Should All Individuals Be Screened for Genetic Predisposition to Cancer?

“…An important consideration is whether or not individuals actually want genetic screening. ere is evidence that the general population have an increased awareness of genetic testing and cancer risk leading to an inevitable increase in demand [32]. e advent of direct-to-consumer testing has already enabled individuals to explore their genetic risk independently with the inevitable result that clinicians become involved when the result is reported as anything other than "normal" [33].…”

The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review

“…109 Five studies assessed nongenetics HCP preparedness for managing genetic information and found that the main concerns arose from uncertainty regarding clinical utility, lack of time, no existing workflows, and concerns about managing psychological impacts of genetic information. [110][111][112][113][114] There were several studies about the practices of nongenetics HCPs in ordering genetic testing or referring their patients to a genetics specialist. Providers such as neurologists, psychiatrists, pulmonologists, dermatologists, and cardiologists were involved in ordering genetic testing, and the frequency and comfort level varied by setting.…”

Genetic risk assessment for hereditary renal cell carcinoma: Clinical consensus statement

“…Further testing in the form of single‐gene or multigene sequencing is becoming increasingly available at numerous centers for appropriate candidates 11 . Although clinicians are at the front line and may be well positioned to recognize patients who need genetic risk assessment, barriers to initiating genetic testing include a lack of confidence to correctly identify optimal thresholds for initiating assessment, ability to discuss the risks and benefits, legal ramifications, and interpretation and explanation of genetic test results 12 . Indeed, adverse medical, legal, and financial incurrences have been documented as a result of cancer genetic testing without expert guidance 13,14 .…”