Development and Real-World Evaluation of a Statewide Mainstream Model of Germline Genetic Testing for BRCA1/2 and Mismatch Repair Gene Variants (Lynch Syndrome).

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Cally A Jennings, Kathryn Cornthwaite, Michael Osborn, Ganessan Kichenadasse, Eryn Dow
{"title":"Development and Real-World Evaluation of a Statewide Mainstream Model of Germline Genetic Testing for BRCA1/2 and Mismatch Repair Gene Variants (Lynch Syndrome).","authors":"Cally A Jennings, Kathryn Cornthwaite, Michael Osborn, Ganessan Kichenadasse, Eryn Dow","doi":"10.1111/ajco.14210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To develop and evaluate an evidence-based mainstream germline genetic testing model to support cancer treatment including the BRCA1/BRCA2 and mismatch repair (MMR) genes across South Australia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participatory action research (PAR) and implementation science principles were used to guide the development of the statewide mainstream pathway. To support the implementation of the mainstream pathway, genetic testing packages for clinicians and consumer support materials have been developed, and an education program has been delivered to clinicians. This quality improvement study used an independent sample t-test to compare the average number of monthly tests completed via mainstream and traditional pathways during two nonconsecutive 6-month periods. Acceptability among patients and clinicians and clinician knowledge, confidence, and experience measures were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total number of BRCA1/2 tests did not increase from pre- to post-pathway implementation. However, there was a significant increase in both the number of tests ordered through the mainstream pathway (pre: mean 3.5, SD 2.07; post: mean 7, SD 2.53) and the proportion of total tests ordered via mainstreaming (pre: mean 14%, SD 9.25%; post: mean 25.0%, SD 5.48%). There were no changes in MMR gene testing patterns, with no mainstream tests ordered. Among clinicians (n = 20) who responded to the post-implementation survey, positive levels of acceptability were reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study showed that the implementation of a statewide mainstream genetic testing pathway in a public health system improved the uptake of mainstream testing for BRCA1/2. Further understanding of the barriers to uptake across settings is needed to support effective utilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":8633,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","volume":" ","pages":"e14210"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.14210","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To develop and evaluate an evidence-based mainstream germline genetic testing model to support cancer treatment including the BRCA1/BRCA2 and mismatch repair (MMR) genes across South Australia.

Methods: Participatory action research (PAR) and implementation science principles were used to guide the development of the statewide mainstream pathway. To support the implementation of the mainstream pathway, genetic testing packages for clinicians and consumer support materials have been developed, and an education program has been delivered to clinicians. This quality improvement study used an independent sample t-test to compare the average number of monthly tests completed via mainstream and traditional pathways during two nonconsecutive 6-month periods. Acceptability among patients and clinicians and clinician knowledge, confidence, and experience measures were assessed.

Results: The total number of BRCA1/2 tests did not increase from pre- to post-pathway implementation. However, there was a significant increase in both the number of tests ordered through the mainstream pathway (pre: mean 3.5, SD 2.07; post: mean 7, SD 2.53) and the proportion of total tests ordered via mainstreaming (pre: mean 14%, SD 9.25%; post: mean 25.0%, SD 5.48%). There were no changes in MMR gene testing patterns, with no mainstream tests ordered. Among clinicians (n = 20) who responded to the post-implementation survey, positive levels of acceptability were reported.

Conclusion: This study showed that the implementation of a statewide mainstream genetic testing pathway in a public health system improved the uptake of mainstream testing for BRCA1/2. Further understanding of the barriers to uptake across settings is needed to support effective utilization.

BRCA1/2和错配修复基因变异(Lynch综合征)的州主流种系基因检测模型的开发和现实世界评估。
目的:开发和评估一种基于证据的主流种系基因检测模型,以支持南澳大利亚地区的癌症治疗,包括BRCA1/BRCA2和错配修复(MMR)基因。方法:采用参与式行动研究(PAR)和实施科学原则指导全州主流路径的制定。为了支持主流途径的实施,已经为临床医生开发了基因检测包和消费者支持材料,并向临床医生提供了一个教育计划。本质量改进研究采用独立样本t检验比较在两个非连续的6个月期间通过主流途径和传统途径完成的每月测试的平均次数。对患者和临床医生的接受程度以及临床医生的知识、信心和经验进行评估。结果:BRCA1/2检测的总数从实施前到实施后没有增加。然而,通过主流途径订购的测试数量显著增加(pre: mean 3.5, SD 2.07;后:平均7,SD 2.53)和通过主流化订购的总测试比例(前:平均14%,SD 9.25%;后:平均值25.0%,标准差5.48%)。MMR基因检测模式没有变化,也没有要求进行主流检测。在响应实施后调查的临床医生(n = 20)中,报告了积极的可接受性水平。结论:本研究表明,在公共卫生系统中实施全州范围的主流基因检测途径,提高了BRCA1/2主流检测的接受程度。需要进一步了解不同环境下的吸收障碍,以支持有效利用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Asia–Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal of oncology that aims to be a forum for facilitating collaboration and exchanging information on what is happening in different countries of the Asia–Pacific region in relation to cancer treatment and care. The Journal is ideally positioned to receive publications that deal with diversity in cancer behavior, management and outcome related to ethnic, cultural, economic and other differences between populations. In addition to original articles, the Journal publishes reviews, editorials, letters to the Editor and short communications. Case reports are generally not considered for publication, only exceptional papers in which Editors find extraordinary oncological value may be considered for review. The Journal encourages clinical studies, particularly prospectively designed clinical trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信