Next Article in Journal
A Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Design for Engaging Children in Therapy at Home—The Design of a Wearable Breathing Trainer
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessing the Joint Value of Genomic-Based Diagnostic Tests and Gene Therapies
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Data Privacy: Key Concerns and Recommendations Based on Consumer Perspectives

J. Pers. Med. 2019, 9(2), 26; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm9020026

Article
Exploring Predictors of Genetic Counseling and Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Findings from the 2015 U.S. National Health Interview Survey
1
Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30307, USA
2
Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 4 April 2019 / Accepted: 29 April 2019 / Published: 10 May 2019

Abstract

:
Despite efforts to increase the availability of clinical genetic testing and counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian (HBOC)-related cancers, these services remain underutilized in clinical settings. There have been few efforts to understand the public’s use of cancer genetic services, particularly for HBOC-related cancers. This analysis is based on data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a U.S.-based nationwide probability sample, to better understand the public’s use of HBOC-related clinical cancer genetic services. Bivariate analyses were used to compute percentages and examine the associations of familial cancer risk for three genetic services outcomes (ever had genetic counseling for cancer risk, ever discussed genetic testing for cancer risk with a provider, and ever had genetic testing for cancer risk). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of familial cancer risk and other demographic and health variables with genetic services. Most women (87.67%) in this study were at low risk based on self-reported family history of breast and ovarian cancer, 10.65% were at medium risk, and 1.68% were at high risk. Overall, very small numbers of individuals had ever had genetic counseling (2.78%), discussed genetic testing with their physician (4.55%) or had genetic testing (1.64%). Across all genetic services outcomes, individuals who were at higher familial risk were more likely to have had genetic counseling than those at lower risk (high risk: aOR = 5.869, 95% CI = 2.911–11.835; medium risk: aOR = 4.121, 95% CI = 2.934–5.789), discussed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 5.133, 95% CI = 2.699–9.764; medium risk: aOR = 3.649, 95% CI = 2.696–4.938), and completed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 8.531, 95% CI = 3.666–19.851; medium risk aOR = 3.057, 95% CI = 1.835–5.094). Those who perceived themselves as being more likely to develop cancer than the average woman were more likely to engage in genetic counseling (aOR = 1.916, 95% CI = 1.334–2.752), discuss genetic testing (aOR = 3.314, 95% CI = 2.463–4.459) or have had genetic testing (aOR = 1.947, 95% CI = 1.13–3.54). Personal cancer history was also a significant predictor of likelihood to have engaged in genetic services. Our findings highlight: (1) potential under-utilization of cancer genetic services among high risk populations in the U.S. and (2) differences in genetic services use based on individual’s characteristics such as self-reported familial risk, personal history, and beliefs about risk of cancer. These results align with other studies which have noted that awareness and use of genetic services are low in the general population and likely not reaching individuals who could benefit most from screening for inherited cancers. Efforts to promote public awareness of familial cancer risk may lead to better uptake of cancer genetic services.
Keywords:
genetics; hereditary cancer; HBOC; BRCA1/2; genetic counseling; genetic testing; genetic services

1. Introduction

Women who carry a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant have substantially increased lifetime risks for breast and ovarian cancer compared to the general population [1]. The identification of pathogenic variant carriers is a precursor to the use of tailored management and prevention strategies to reduce mortality in individuals and to initiate testing among at-risk family members. Further, confirmation of true negatives could reduce unnecessary cancer screening and surgery [2,3,4,5]. In response to this evidence, several medical associations have put forth clinical practice guidelines to promote screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), and as appropriate, genetic counseling and testing [2,6,7,8,9,10,11].
Despite well-defined strategies for screening among individuals who are at increased risk for BRCA1/2-related cancers, cancer genetic services remain underutilized in clinical settings [12,13,14,15,16]. The vast majority of individuals who carry BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant have not yet been identified, and when they are, it is often within the context of a breast and/or ovarian cancer diagnosis [17]. Genetic counseling referrals and genetic testing rates are low even among individuals with cancer diagnoses. Indeed, half or fewer of the breast cancer and ovarian cancer patients have received genetic counseling or testing [18,19,20,21], and many have never discussed genetic testing with their provider [22].
Since 2005, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended screening for unaffected (i.e., no personal history of cancer) women with a strong family history of certain cancers to identify those who may be at increased risk for potentially harmful pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 [23]. It is recommended that these higher risk women be referred for genetic counseling and undergo genetic testing if indicated after counseling, while those deemed at low inherited cancer risk should not be recommended for routine genetic counseling or testing [10]. Prior analyses of national data found that there was low use of genetic services among individuals at risk of BRCA1/2- or Lynch syndrome-associated cancers; however, since 2005, there have been substantial legal and social changes that would likely influence genetic service use (e.g., decrease in test cost, better insurance coverage, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) [24]. More recent studies have reported very low uptake rates of genetic counseling and testing among individuals at-risk for a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant [25] and the status of misuse of genetic services among low risk women is largely unknown. Although there have been numerous efforts undertaken to improve public awareness about familial risk, health history and genetic testing to help increase the population’s genetic literacy [26,27,28,29], there are still substantial gaps in uptake of recommendations and current patterns in use of genetic services remain unclear [26,27,28,29]. Additional attention has also been drawn to this issue due to the increase in access to direct-to-consumer testing that provides genomic profiling to the public [30,31,32,33,34,35].
Therefore, the goal of this paper is to use the updated 2015 U.S. National Health Information Survey (NHIS) data to identify the likelihood that individuals have had genetic counseling, discussed genetic testing, or had genetic testing based on key demographic variables and familial risk of BRCA1/2-related cancers.

2. Methods

This secondary data analysis is based on data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), which is a national probability sample survey that collects information about the United States population through annual household interviews [36]. Due to the nature of this study (publicly available data, non-human subjects research), no IRB approval was required. The sampling plan was designed to gather information about clusters of addresses located in primary sampling units drawn from each state and the District of Columbia. The Cancer Control Supplement is distributed every five years and includes a set of questions assessing personal and family history of cancer and knowledge and use of genetic testing, among other health-related questions. The population for the present study was restricted to adult females who provided a response to at least one of the three outcome variable questions (ever had genetic counseling, discussed genetic testing, had genetic testing).
Outcome Variables. Three outcome variables pertaining to genetic testing and counseling for cancer were included from the Cancer Control module. Participants were provided with a definition of genetic testing and counseling and were asked if they have ever had genetic counseling by responding to the question, “Have you ever received genetic counseling for cancer risk” (yes/no), ever discussed genetic testing for cancer by responding to the question, “Have you ever discussed the possibility of getting a genetic test for cancer risk with a doctor or other health care professional,” (yes/no), or ever had genetic testing for cancer by responding to the question, “Have you ever had a genetic test to determine if you are at greater risk of developing cancer in the future” (yes/no). Individuals only received the final question about whether they ever had genetic testing if they responded ‘yes’ to the previous question about ever discussing genetic testing for cancer with a provider.
Independent Variables. Individual’s familial risk for BRCA1/2-related cancers (breast and ovarian) was estimated based on their reported number of first-degree female relatives (parents, siblings, offspring) who had been diagnosed with BRCA1/2-related cancers (i.e., breast and ovarian cancers) and the age of diagnosis (<50, ≥50 years of age). Familial risk was ranked as (1) “low risk” which included individuals with no first degree relatives with a history of breast or ovarian cancers, (2) “medium risk” that included women with at least one first-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer at ≥50 years of age, or (3) “high risk” that included at least one first-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer under the age of 50 and/or any family history of ovarian cancer [37]. These classifications were adapted from previous studies that have used NHIS data [24]. Additional variables of interest included age (18+ years), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Other), marital status (married, widowed, separated/divorced, never married, living with partner), highest level of education (0–21), household income ($0–$34,999, $35,000–$49,000, $50,000–$74,999, $75,000–$99,999, and $100,000 and over), type of insurance coverage (Private, Other), individual’s perception about their likelihood to get breast cancer compared to the average woman (less likely, about as likely, more likely), and personal cancer history (none, breast or ovary, other cancer).
Statistical Analysis. We conducted a complete case analysis using the sample of women who answered questions about genetic testing and counseling. Women who responded to at least one of these three questions were included in the sample.
We used weighted bivariate analyses to compute percentages and examine the associations of familial cancer risk with other characteristics and with each of the genetic testing and counseling outcomes. Weighted two-sample t-test (for age and education) and chi-square tests of independence (for categorical variables) were used to determine statistical significance for each outcome.
Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios and corresponding 95% confident intervals for the association of familial cancer risk and covariates with each of the genetic testing and counseling variables. We controlled for all factors that were determined a priori to potentially affect genetic testing outcomes based on previous literature and model fit [38]. Thus, the final model included: level of familial risk, age, race/ethnicity, marital status, highest level of education, household income, insurance status, perception about an individual’s likelihood to get cancer, and personal cancer history. All analyses were conducted in SAS version 9.4 and incorporated the survey sample weights to account for the sampling strategy, non-response, and design effect of cluster sampling in NHIS.

3. Results

A total of 18,601 women were included in this nationally representative sample. Most (87.67%) were at low risk (no first-degree female relatives with history of breast or ovarian cancer), 10.65% were at medium risk (at least one first-degree female relative with breast cancer), and 1.68% were at high risk (at least one first-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer under 50 or any first-degree relatives with ovarian cancer) of developing BRCA1/2-related cancers. Overall, very small numbers of individuals had ever had genetic counseling (2.78%), discussed genetic testing with their physician (4.55%) or had genetic testing (1.64%) (Table 1).
Predictors of likelihood to have ever had genetic counseling (Table 2) included level of familial risk, with those individuals with the highest family risk (aOR = 5.869, 95% CI = 2.911–11.835) and those with medium family risk (aOR = 4.121, 95% CI = 2.934–5.789) to be more likely to have had genetic counseling than those at low risk. Other factors associated with genetic counseling included perceived cancer risk. Individuals who felt they were about as likely to develop cancer were significantly more likely to have received genetic counseling compared to those that perceived their risk to be less likely than their peers (aOR = 1.916, 95% CI = 1.334–2.752). Personal history of breast or ovarian cancer also increased likelihood to have had genetic counseling compared to those who had no personal history of cancer (aOR = 11.814, 95% CI = 7.236–19.291) and other cancer (aOR = 3.317, 95% CI = 2.003–5.491).
Level of familial risk also influenced likelihood to have discussed genetic testing (Table 3), with those at medium (aOR = 3.649, 95% CI = 2.696–4.938) and high risk (aOR = 5.133, 95% CI = 2.699–9.764) being more likely than those who were at low risk to have ever discussed genetic testing with a provider. In addition, those who perceived themselves as more likely to develop cancer (aOR = 3.314, 95% CI = 2.463–4.459) were more likely to have discussed genetic testing than individuals who perceived themselves to be as likely as their peers to develop cancer. Individuals with a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer were more likely to have discussed genetic testing compared to those with no personal history of cancer (aOR = 8.473, 95% CI = 5.224–13.744) and other cancer (aOR = 2.612, 95% CI = 1.693–4.029).
The final outcome of whether an individual has had genetic testing for cancer risk (Table 4) was associated with individual’s level of risk, with those who are at medium or high risk being significantly more likely to have ever had genetic testing than those at lowest risk (medium aOR = 3.057, 95% CI = 1.835–5.094; high aOR = 8.531, 95% CI = 3.666–19.851). Perceived cancer risk was also significantly associated with likelihood to have had genetic testing for cancer risk with those who perceived themselves to be at higher risk to develop cancer having a higher likelihood to have had genetic testing (aOR = 1.947, 95% CI = 1.13–3.354). Personal cancer history was also associated with higher likelihood to have had genetic testing (breast or ovary aOR = 20.266, 95% CI = 11.122–36.927; other cancer aOR = 3.777, 95% CI = 2.052–6.952).

4. Discussion

Despite efforts to increase utilization of genetic services among individuals at risk for developing BRCA1/2-related cancers, our findings show potential underutilization in this nationally representative sample of females in the U.S. Higher levels of familial risk were associated with higher levels of genetic counseling, discussion of testing, and use of genetic testing; however, overall levels of engagement with genetic services were low. While over 12% of participants would have been considered eligible for genetic counseling and subsequent genetic testing based on family history, only a small subset received these services, suggesting that individuals at increased likelihood of HBOC are potentially not receiving appropriate follow-up services. These results align with previous reports that demonstrate low rates of awareness and utilization of counseling and testing, even among individuals at high risk of hereditary cancer [24,39,40] and with personal history of cancer [22]. It has been estimated that only 6% of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the general population have been identified and a recent study found fewer than one-in-five at-risk breast or ovarian cancer patients have undergone genetic testing [41].
We found significant differences across all genetic services outcomes based on individual’s perceived cancer risk. Individuals with higher risk perceptions may be more likely to engage with health professionals and be willing to discuss counseling and testing compared to those who are less worried [42]. Indeed, cancer risk and worry are well established motivators for preventive behaviors [43,44,45,46]. Future efforts to improve genetic service use could consider tailoring interventions based on perceived cancer risk.
Our findings also suggest an association between personal cancer history and likelihood to engage in genetic services. This increased genetic service utilization among individuals with a personal history of cancer indicates a linkage between genetic service use and cancer diagnosis [17]. While these findings point to possible integration of genetic services into clinical practice, they do not provide insight about the number of women who were diagnosed and did not receive appropriate follow-up. Recent guidelines have suggested moving toward multigene panel testing for all breast cancer patients [47,48]. This approach could help identify more patients with hereditary cancers; approximately 9% of patients with breast cancer who had tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations and underwent subsequent panel testing were found to have a pathogenic mutation in a breast cancer susceptibility gene [49]. Furthermore, future studies should continue to monitor use of these health services among individuals diagnosed with HBOC and consider ways to improve cascade screening among family members who may also be at elevated risk.
Some of our results deviated from the literature, as we did not find significant differences in uptake of genetic counseling or genetic testing by race. Other studies have identified low levels of awareness and use of genetic counseling and testing among minority individuals. Efforts to expand genetic service use come in the context of widespread concerns that health benefits of genomic translation will not reach all those who could benefit and thus, will exacerbate health disparities [50,51,52,53]. Indeed, uptake of evidence-based recommendations for genetic services already has shown patterns of disparities for African American women even in specialty care settings [14,15]. These deviant findings may have been due to power limitations, as we had limited cell sizes when including all predictors of interest in the final model. In addition, these null results may be due to the self-reported nature of these data. Previous literature has demonstrated that family health history collection and genetic literacy are lower among minority groups, which could reduce the accuracy of recalling health information about family members [54,55,56,57].
While our results have important implications, this study is not without limitations. The Cancer Control Supplemental survey used for this analysis focused on BRCA1/2-related cancers among women; however, BRCA1/2 mutations can also occur in men and recent results have demonstrated a gender gap in genetic testing [58]. Additionally, other hereditary cancers (e.g., Lynch Syndrome-associated cancers) with known genetic tests were not assessed. We assessed individual’s likelihood to have ever received cancer genetic services and thus did not directly assess whether an individual had received services specific to HBOC. Thus, it is possible that those who received genetic services specifically for the purposes of HBOC or BRCA1/2 variants is even lower than what is reported in our results. Further, these data are cross sectional and self-reported, thus, we are unable to assess for causality and whether cancer risk predicted or preceded genetic counseling and testing uptake. The self-reported nature of data may limit findings, as these individuals may not know their full health history and there is opportunity for confusion about cancer types, especially among ovarian cancer, which may be mistaken for cervical and uterine cancer. In addition, the classification we used for familial cancer risk (low, medium, and high) was based on self-reported family history for BRCA1/2-related cancers. This approach was adapted from previous studies that have used NHIS [24]. However, the NHIS survey questions were limited in their ability to evaluate family history that may be suggestive of other high penetrance breast and colon cancer genes (e.g., TP53, PTEN) and moderate penetrance genes (e.g., ATM, CHEK2) [59,60]. Given that the multigene panel testing is becoming the standard clinical practice, it is important to include more detailed family cancer history questions in national surveys to estimate familial risk for hereditary cancers. Finally, our estimates of risk focused on family history risk factors, rather than personal risk factors (e.g., smoking, alcohol consumption, age at menarche, age at first live birth of child).
In light of these limitations, our results have important implications at both the clinical and public health levels. Despite ongoing efforts to increase family health history knowledge and collection of family history at the individual and provider levels to improve risk stratification and referrals to counseling and testing, this study demonstrates that individuals at high risk may not be receiving appropriate information and referrals to genetic services. There is well-documented evidence indicating a lack of time spent on discussion of family health history and a wide range of variation in physician practice around collection of health histories [61,62]. Further, patients do not typically collect or report family health information to physicians and may avoid genetic counseling and testing because of privacy concerns and fear of adverse consequences, including costs and life insurance discrimination [63,64,65]. Even if health histories are properly collected, providers often report insufficient knowledge of genetics and lack of resources for referral to genetic services (e.g., do not know about hospital cancer genetic services), with concern about shortage of adult medical genetic counselors [66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74]. Widespread efforts could be supported and sustained by improving baseline family health history collection through easy-to-use tools and provider decision support [32,75]. Improving collection of health history information for both individuals and providers could improve prevention efforts for individuals at risk of BRCA1/2-related cancers.
Telegenetic counseling service also holds the promise to expand cancer genetic services reach, especially among racial-ethnic minority groups, people in rural settings and with lower socioeconomic status [76,77]. The implementation of new testing criteria to offer panel testing to all breast cancer patients could potentially maximize the identification of hereditary cancer patients and promote the intervention efficacy for patients and their at-risk family members. Other strategies to increase knowledge and use of genetic services may include bidirectional cancer registry reporting provider and patient education about cancer genetics [78,79]. Use of large datasets also will help ensure we are working toward addressing broad national goals (e.g., Healthy People 2020 genomics goals) [80]. Specifically, use of the NHIS and other datasets can help to identify potential characteristics of individuals who are and are not accessing genetic services appropriately and thus target interventions to meet this goal in the future.
Findings of this study could inform future research and intervention elements such as strategies to improve collection of health history information, and ultimately improve appropriate referral and use of cancer genetic services for the benefit of all patients and their families.

Author Contributions

C.G.A. conceptualized the design of the work, conducted analysis, and led the writing of the manuscript. M.R. conceptualized the design of the work, interpretation of the data, and assisted in the writing and editing of this manuscript. Y.G. oversaw all aspects of this work and assisted in the interpretation of the data, writing of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of this manuscript for submission.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kuchenbaecker, K.B.; Hopper, J.L.; Barnes, D.R.; Phillips, K.A.; Mooij, T.M.; Roos-Blom, M.J.; Jervis, S.; van Leeuwen, F.E.; Milne, R.L.; Andrieu, N.; et al. Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. JAMA 2017, 317, 2402–2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  2. ACOG. Practice Bulletin No. 103: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Gynecol. Oncol. 2009, 113, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Finch, A.P.; Lubinski, J.; Moller, P.; Singer, C.F.; Karlan, B.; Senter, L.; Rosen, B.; Maehle, L.; Ghadirian, P.; Cybulski, C.; et al. Impact of oophorectomy on cancer incidence and mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 1547–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Rebbeck, T.R.; Brown, P.H.; Hawk, E.T.; Lerman, C.; Paskett, E.D.; Sellers, T.A.; Lippman, S.M. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention, and cancer prevention research: Two journals, a common goal. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2008, 17, 2903–2905. [Google Scholar]
  5. Rebbeck, T.R.; Friebel, T.; Lynch, H.T.; Neuhausen, S.L.; van ’t Veer, L.; Garber, J.E.; Evans, G.R.; Narod, S.A.; Isaacs, C.; Matloff, E.; et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: The PROSE Study Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004, 22, 1055–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Moyer, V.A. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2014, 160, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lancaster, J.M.; Powell, C.B.; Chen, L.M.; Richardson, D.L. Society of Gynecologic Oncology statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. Gynecol. Oncol. 2015, 136, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hampel, H.; Bennett, R.L.; Buchanan, A.; Pearlman, R.; Wiesner, G.L. A practice guideline from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors: Referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment. Genet. Med. 2015, 17, 70–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Daly, M.B.; Pilarski, R.; Berry, M.; Buys, S.S.; Farmer, M.; Friedman, S.; Garber, J.E.; Kauff, N.D.; Khan, S.; Klein, C.; et al. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer. Netw. 2017, 15, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. BRCA-Related Cancer: Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing. 2013. Available online: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/brca-related-cancer-risk-assessment-genetic-counseling-and-genetic-testing (accessed on 11 November 2018).
  11. Assessment, R. Hereditary Cancer Syndromes and Risk Assessment. 2015. Available online: https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Genetics/Hereditary-Cancer-Syndromes-and-Risk-Assessment (accessed on 13 November 2018).
  12. Haber, K.M.; Seagle, B.L.; Drew, B.; Morrill-Cornelius, S.; Samuelson, R.; Hostmeyer, S.; Shahabi, S. Genetic counseling for hereditary breast and gynecologic cancer syndromes at a community hospital. Conn. Med. 2014, 78, 417–420. [Google Scholar]
  13. Somers, A.E.; Ware, S.M.; Collins, K.; Jefferies, J.L.; He, H.; Miller, E.M. Provision of cardiovascular genetic counseling services: Current practice and future directions. J. Genet. Couns. 2014, 23, 976–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Armstrong, K.; Micco, E.; Carney, A.; Stopfer, J.; Putt, M. Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. JAMA 2005, 293, 1729–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Forman, A.D.; Hall, M.J. Influence of race/ethnicity on genetic counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Breast J. 2009, 15, S56–S62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hogarth, S.; Javitt, G.; Melzer, D. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 2008, 9, 161–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bellcross, C.A.; Kolor, K.; Goddard, K.A.; Coates, R.J.; Reyes, M.; Khoury, M.J. Awareness and utilization of BRCA1/2 testing among U.S. primary care physicians. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011, 40, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Drescher, C.W.; Beatty, J.D.; Resta, R.; Andersen, M.R.; Watabayashi, K.; Thorpe, J.; Hawley, S.; Purkey, H.; Chubak, J.; Hanson, N.; et al. The effect of referral for genetic counseling on genetic testing and surgical prevention in women at high risk for ovarian cancer: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Cancer 2016, 122, 3509–3518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Powell, C.B.; Littell, R.; Hoodfar, E.; Sinclair, F.; Pressman, A. Does the diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer trigger referral to genetic counseling? Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2013, 23, 431–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wright, J.D.; Chen, L.; Tergas, A.I.; Accordino, M.; Ananth, C.V.; Neugut, A.I.; Hershman, D.L. Underuse of BRCA testing in patients with breast and ovarian cancer. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 214, 761–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wood, M.E.; Kadlubek, P.; Pham, T.H.; Wollins, D.S.; Lu, K.H.; Weitzel, J.N.; Neuss, M.N.; Hughes, K.S. Quality of cancer family history and referral for genetic counseling and testing among oncology practices: A pilot test of quality measures as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 824–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Childers, C.P.; Childers, K.K.; Maggard-Gibbons, M.; Macinko, J. National Estimates of Genetic Testing in Women with a History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 3800–3806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nelson, H.D.; Fu, R.; Goddard, K.; Mitchell, J.P.; Okinaka-Hu, L.; Pappas, M.; Zakher, B. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Evidence Syntheses, formerly Systematic Evidence Reviews. In Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer: Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US): Rockville, MD, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  24. Baer, H.J.; Brawarsky, P.; Murray, M.F.; Haas, J.S. Familial risk of cancer and knowledge and use of genetic testing. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2010, 25, 717–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hull, L.E.; Haas, J.S.; Simon, S.R. Provider Discussions of Genetic Tests with U.S. Women at Risk for a BRCA Mutation. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2018, 54, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Abrams, L.R.; McBride, C.M.; Hooker, G.W.; Cappella, J.N.; Koehly, L.M. The Many Facets of Genetic Literacy: Assessing the Scalability of Multiple Measures for Broad Use in Survey Research. PLoS ONE 2016, 10, e0141532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. APHA. Strengthening Genetic and Genomic Literacy; APHA: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hazin, R.; Brothers, K.B.; Malin, B.A.; Koenig, B.A.; Sanderson, S.C.; Rothstein, M.A.; Williams, M.S.; Clayton, E.W.; Kullo, I.J. Ethical, legal, and social implications of incorporating genomic information into electronic health records. Genet. Med. 2013, 15, 810–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  29. Hurle, B.; Citrin, T.; Jenkins, J.F.; Kaphingst, K.A.; Lamb, N.; Roseman, J.E.; Bonham, V.L. What does it mean to be genomically literate? National Human Genome Research Institute Meeting Report. Genet. Med. 2013, 15, 658–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. The EGAPP initiative: Lessons learned. Genet. Med. 2014, 16, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Teutsch, S.M.; Bradley, L.A.; Palomaki, G.E.; Haddow, J.E.; Piper, M.; Calonge, N.; Dotson, W.D.; Douglas, M.P.; Berg, A.O. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: Methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet. Med. 2009, 11, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Acheson, L.S.; Wang, C.; Zyzanski, S.J.; Lynn, A.; Ruffin, I.V.M.T.; Gramling, R.; Rubinstein, W.S.; O’Neill, S.M.; Nease, D.E., Jr. Family history and perceptions about risk and prevention for chronic diseases in primary care: A report from the Family Healthware (TM) Impact Trial. Genet. Med. 2010, 12, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Valdez, R.; Yoon, P.W.; Qureshi, N.; Green, R.F.; Khoury, M.J. Family history in public health practice: A genomic tool for disease prevention and health promotion. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2010, 31, 69–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bates, B.R.; Templeton, A.; Achter, P.J.; Harris, T.M.; Condit, C.M. What does a gene for heart disease’ mean? A focus group study of public understanding of genetic risk factors. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2009, 119, 156–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Allen, C.G.; Gabriel, J.; Flynn, M.; Cunningham, T.N.; Wang, C. The impact of raw DNA availability and corresponding online interpretation services: A mixed-methods study. Transl. Behav. Med. 2017, 8, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health Interview Survey; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2015. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/index.htm (accessed on 12 July 2018).
  37. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian; National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Jenkintown, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sweeny, K.; Ghane, A.; Legg, A.M.; Huynh, H.P.; Andrews, S.E. Predictors of genetic testing decisions: A systematic review and critique of the literature. J. Genet. Couns. 2014, 23, 263–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Levy, D.E.; Garber, J.E.; Shields, A.E. Guidelines for genetic risk assessment of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: Early disagreements and low utilization. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2009, 24, 822–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mai, P.L.; Vadaparampil, S.T.; Breen, N.; McNeel, T.S.; Wideroff, L.; Graubard, B.I. Awareness of cancer susceptibility genetic testing: The 2000, 2005, and 2010 National Health Interview Surveys. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2014, 46, 440–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Pruthi, S.; Gostout, B.S.; Lindor, N.M. Identification and Management of Women with BRCA Mutations or Hereditary Predisposition for Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2010, 85, 1111–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Roberts, M.C.; Taber, J.M.; Klein, W.M. Engagement with Genetic Information and Uptake of Genetic Testing: The Role of Trust and Personal Cancer History. J. Cancer Educ. 2017, 33, 893–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wang, C.; O’Neill, S.M.; Rothrock, N.; Gramling, R.; Sen, A.; Acheson, L.S.; Rubinstein, W.S.; Nease, D.E., Jr.; Ruffin, M.T. Comparison of risk perceptions and beliefs across common chronic diseases. Prev. Med. 2009, 48, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. DiLorenzo, T.A.; Schnur, J.; Montgomery, G.H.; Erblich, J.; Winkel, G.; Bovbjerg, D.H. A model of disease-specific worry in heritable disease: The influence of family history, perceived risk and worry about other illnesses. J. Behav. Med. 2006, 29, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Mosca, L.; Jones, W.K.; King, K.B.; Ouyang, P.; Redberg, R.F.; Hill, M.N. Awareness, perception, and knowledge of heart disease risk and prevention among women in the United States. American Heart Association Women’s Heart Disease and Stroke Campaign Task Force. Arch. Fam. Med. 2000, 9, 506–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Covello, V.T.; Peters, R.G. Women’s perceptions of the risks of age-related diseases, including breast cancer: Reports from a 3-year research study. Health Commun. 2002, 14, 377–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Caffrey, M. Breast Surgeons Seek Genetic Testing for All Patients with Breast Cancer. 2019. Available online: https://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/breast-surgeons-seek-genetic-testing-for-all-patients-with-breast-cancer (accessed on 20 October 2018).
  48. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Genetics Toolkit. 2019. Available online: https://www.asco.org/practice-guidelines/cancer-care-initiatives/genetics-toolkit (accessed on 20 October 2018).
  49. Moran, O.; Nikitina, D.; Royer, R.; Poll, A.; Metcalfe, K.; Narod, S.A.; Akbari, M.R.; Kotsopoulos, J. Revisiting breast cancer patients who previously tested negative for BRCA mutations using a 12-gene panel. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2017, 161, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Honda, K. Who gets the information about genetic testing for cancer risk? The role of race/ethnicity, immigration status, and primary care clinicians. Clin. Genet. 2003, 64, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Armstrong, K.; Weber, B.; Ubel, P.A.; Guerra, C.; Schwartz, J.S. Interest in BRCA1/2 testing in a primary care population. Prev. Med. 2002, 34, 590–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pagan, J.A.; Su, D.; Li, L.; Armstrong, K.; Asch, D.A. Racial and ethnic disparities in awareness of genetic testing for cancer risk. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2009, 37, 524–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ramirez, A.G.; Aparicio-Ting, F.E.; de Majors, S.S.; Miller, A.R. Interest, awareness, and perceptions of genetic testing among Hispanic family members of breast cancer survivors. Ethn. Dis. 2006, 16, 398–403. [Google Scholar]
  54. Goergen, A.F.; Ashida, S.; Skapinsky, K.; de Heer, H.D.; Wilkinson, A.V.; Koehly, L.M. What You Don’t Know: Improving Family Health History Knowledge among Multigenerational Families of Mexican Origin. Public Health Genom. 2016, 19, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ashida, S.; Goodman, M.; Pandya, C.; Koehly, L.; Lachance, C.; Stafford, J.; Kaphingst, K. Age Difference in Genetic Knowledge, Health Literacy and Causal Beliefs for Health Conditions. Public Health Genom. 2010, 14, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Syurina, E.; Brankovic, I.; Probst-Hensch, N.; Brand, A. Genome-Based Health Literacy: A New Challenge for Public Health Genomics. Public Health Genom. 2011, 14, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  57. Ashida, S.; Goodman, M.S.; Stafford, J.; Lachance, C.; Kaphingst, K.A. Perceived familiarity with and importance of family health history among a medically underserved population. J. Community Genet. 2012, 3, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  58. Childers, K.K.; Maggard-Gibbons, M.; Macinko, J.; Childers, C.P. National Distribution of Cancer Genetic Testing in the United States: Evidence for a Gender Disparity in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018, 4, 876–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Castellanos, E.; Gel, B.; Rosas, I.; Tornero, E.; Santin, S.; Pluvinet, R.; Velasco, J.; Sumoy, L.; Del Valle, J.; Perucho, M.; et al. A comprehensive custom panel design for routine hereditary cancer testing: Preserving control, improving diagnostics and revealing a complex variation landscape. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 39348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Economopoulou, P.; Dimitriadis, G.; Psyrri, A. Beyond BRCA: New hereditary breast cancer susceptibility genes. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2015, 41, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Medalie, J.H.; Zyzanski, S.J.; Goodwin, M.A.; Stange, K.C. Two physician styles of focusing on the family. J. Fam. Pract. 2000, 49, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  62. Sabatino, S.A.; McCarthy, E.P.; Phillips, R.S.; Burns, R.B. Breast cancer risk assessment and management in primary care: Provider attitudes, practices, and barriers. Cancer Detect. Prev. 2007, 31, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Scheuner, M.T.; Sieverding, P.; Shekelle, P.G. Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: A systematic review. JAMA 2008, 299, 1320–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yoon, P.W.; Scheuner, M.T.; Khoury, M.J. Research priorities for evaluating family history in the prevention of common chronic diseases. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2003, 24, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yoon, P.W.; Scheuner, M.T.; Peterson-Oehlke, K.L.; Gwinn, M.; Faucett, A.; Khoury, M.J. Can family history be used as a tool for public health and preventive medicine? Genet. Med. 2002, 4, 304–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  66. Schroy, P.C., 3rd; Barrison, A.F.; Ling, B.S.; Wilson, S.; Geller, A.C. Family history and colorectal cancer screening: A survey of physician knowledge and practice patterns. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2002, 97, 1031–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Acton, R.T.; Burst, N.M.; Casebeer, L.; Ferguson, S.M.; Greene, P.; Laird, B.L.; Leviton, L. Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of Alabama’s primary care physicians regarding cancer genetics. Acad. Med. 2000, 75, 850–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Grover, S.; Stoffel, E.M.; Bussone, L.; Tschoegl, E.; Syngal, S. Physician assessment of family cancer history and referral for genetic evaluation in colorectal cancer patients. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2004, 2, 813–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sweet, K.M.; TBradley, L.; Westman, J.A. Identification and referral of families at high risk for cancer susceptibility. J. Clin Oncol. 2002, 20, 528–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. National Instututes of Health. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement Family History and Improving Health. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2009, 95, 1110–1117. [Google Scholar]
  71. Elwyn, G.; Iredale, R.; Gray, J. Reactions of GPs to a triage-controlled referral system for cancer genetics. Fam. Pract. 2002, 19, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  72. Emery, J.; Morris, H.; Goodchild, R.; Fanshawe, T.; Prevost, A.T.; Bobrow, M.; Kinmonth, A.L. The GRAIDS Trial: A cluster randomised controlled trial of computer decision support for the management of familial cancer risk in primary care. Br. J. Cancer 2007, 97, 486–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Lucassen, A.; Watson, E.; Harcourt, J.; Rose, P.; O’Grady, J. Guidelines for referral to a regional genetics service: GPs respond by referring more appropriate cases. Fam. Pract. 2001, 18, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  74. Cooksey, J.A.; Forte, G.; Benkendorf, J.; Blitzer, M.G. The state of the medical geneticist workforce: Findings of the 2003 survey of American Board of Medical Genetics certified geneticists. Genet. Med. 2005, 7, 439–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  75. Reid, G.T.; Walter, F.M.; Brisbane, J.M.; Emery, J.D. Family History Questionnaires Designed for Clinical Use: A Systematic Review. Public Health Genom. 2009, 12, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Schwartz, M.D.; Valdimarsdottir, H.B.; Peshkin, B.N.; Mandelblatt, J.; Nusbaum, R.; Huang, A.T.; Chang, Y.; Graves, K.; Isaacs, C.; Wood, M.; et al. Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 618–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kinney, A.Y.; Butler, K.M.; Schwartz, M.D.; Mandelblatt, J.S.; Boucher, K.M.; Pappas, L.M.; Gammon, A.; Kohlmann, W.; Edwards, S.L.; Stroup, A.M.; et al. Expanding access to BRCA1/2 genetic counseling with telephone delivery: A cluster randomized trial. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2014, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Progress in Public Health Genomics Depends on Measuring Population Level Outcomes. 2018. Available online: https://blogs.cdc.gov/genomics/2018/01/23/progress-in-public-health/ (accessed on 12 March 2019). [Google Scholar]
  79. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tools for Bidirectional Cancer Registry Reporting to Identify Individuals at Risk for Lynch Syndrome. 2017. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/implementation/toolkit/lynch_4.htm (accessed on 12 March 2019). [Google Scholar]
  80. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020 Topics and Objective: Genomics; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2015.
Table 1. Characteristics of Individuals by Knowledge and Use of Genetic Counseling and Testing for Cancer.
Table 1. Characteristics of Individuals by Knowledge and Use of Genetic Counseling and Testing for Cancer.
Ever Had Genetic Counseling (N = 475) Discussed Genetic Testing (N = 778)Ever had Genetic Testing (N = 280)
N (Mean)% (95% CI)N (Mean)% (95% CI)N (Mean)% (95% CI)
Level of Familial Risk
Low28561.62448261.20816861.747
Medium16233.79526134.9878930.382
High 254.581333.805237.871
Age52.2350.35–54.1149.1047.58–50.6353.3951.48–55.29
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White 31571.47652772.95318872.525
Non-Hispanic Black7814.98811113.6294413.712
Other8213.53614013.4174813.764
Marital Status
Married21548.97234546.93412849.218
Widowed5411.544649.4063111.501
Separated/Divorced10920.6515215.6865818.956
Never Married7214.39917022.2034915.381
Living with Partner254.434475.771144.947
Highest Level of Education15.8515.49–16.2116.2515.99–16.5215.7915.41–16.16
Household Income
$0–34,99915833.21325331.9888632.862
$35,000–$49,000499.8728210.3053611.504
$50,000–$74,9997918.55911816.7745120.267
$75,000–$99,999449.7477910.808216.634
$100,000 and over11928.60819030.1257228.732
Insurance Status
Private (ref) 24473.37944877.13814871.358
Other 11526.62017622.8626728.643
Perceived Cancer Risk in Self
More Likely 16538.35926734.4229434.769
Less Likely12126.85817923.8647429.914
About as Likely 17234.78331141.71410135.317
Personal Cancer History
No cancer31565.0857271.78215555.857
Breast of Ovarian9720.2711115.6478227.635
Other cancer6314.659512.5714316.509
Weighted percent are reported.
Table 2. Associations with Ever had Genetic Counseling.
Table 2. Associations with Ever had Genetic Counseling.
OR95% CI aOR95% CI
Level of Familial Risk
Low (ref)
Medium4.863 *3.8856.0894.121 *2.9345.789
High 4.102 *2.3507.1605.869 *2.91111.835
Age0.9830.9641.0010.9910.9781.005
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White (ref)
Non-Hispanic Black1.0730.7801.4751.5320.9842.384
Other0.685 *0.5160.9090.9690.6961.348
Highest Level of Education1.0671.0191.1171.0160.9461.091
Marital Status
Married (ref)
Widowed0.7180.4881.0550.7210.2472.1
Separated/Divorced0.9570.7181.2750.9820.6711.435
Never Married0.591 *0.4260.8200.7510.4831.169
Living with Partner0.6540.3691.1590.6550.3441.248
Household Income
$0–34,9990.543 *0.3860.7640.6930.3951.217
$35,000–$49,0000.570 *0.3800.8550.7320.4271.254
$50,000–$74,9990.8220.5761.1730.8260.5231.305
$75,000–$99,9990.6280.4070.9680.8070.4871.336
$100,000 and over (ref)
Insurance Status
Private (ref)
Other 0.7660.5781.0140.8620.5641.319
Perceived Cancer Risk in Self
Less Likely0.8300.6271.0980.8530.6041.204
About as Likely (ref)
More Likely 3.885 *2.9915.0461.916 *1.3342.752
Personal Cancer History
No Cancer (ref)
Breast or Ovary9.721 *7.13913.23511.814 *7.23619.291
Other Cancer 2.887 *2.0084.1523.317 *2.0035.491
*p < 0.05.
Table 3. Associations with Discussed Genetic Testing.
Table 3. Associations with Discussed Genetic Testing.
OR95% CI aOR95% CI
Level of Familial Risk
Low (ref)
Medium5.335 *4.4326.4223.649 *2.6964.938
High 3.481 *2.1745.5725.133 *2.6999.764
Age0.9960.9921.0010.988 *0.9770.998
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White (ref)
Non-Hispanic Black0.9530.7541.2051.2850.9151.805
Other0.661 *0.5220.8380.8920.6551.216
Highest Level of Education1.1311.0871.1781.0961.0291.167
Marital Status
Married (ref)
Widowed0.604 *0.4440.8231.0660.4492.529
Separated/Divorced0.752 *0.5760.9810.7290.5181.025
Never Married0.9610.7481.2351.1970.8441.698
Living with Partner0.8940.6421.2470.8610.5561.334
Household Income
$0–34,9990.490 *0.3870.6200.7430.5161.072
$35,000–$49,0000.5590.4000.7810.7750.5121.175
$50,000–$74,9990.696 *0.5270.9200.651 *0.4480.945
$75,000–$99,9990.657 *0.4480.9610.7770.5281.144
$100,000 and over (ref)
Insurance Status
Private (ref)
Other Coverage0.6170.4940.7710.8110.5961.103
Perceived Cancer Risk in Self
Less Likely0.8200.6511.0340.8060.5991.084
About as Likely (ref)
More Likely 5.6004.5046.9633.314 *2.4634.459
Personal Cancer History
No Cancer
Breast or Ovary7.048 *5.36013.0388.473 *5.22413.744
Other Cancer 2.261 *1.6833.0382.612 *1.6934.029
*p < 0.05.
Table 4. Associations with Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk.
Table 4. Associations with Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk.
OR95% CI aOR95% CI
Level of Familial Risk
Low (ref)
Medium4.200 *3.0815.7253.057 *1.8355.094
High 7.083 *3.85113.0258.531 *3.66619.851
Age1.009 *1.0021.0150.9930.9761.011
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White (ref)
Non-Hispanic Black0.9660.6521.4321.2910.7422.246
Other0.6900.4681.0160.8660.5261.426
Highest Level of Education1.0581.0041.1151.010.9351.091
Marital Status
Married (ref)
Widowed0.7150.4371.1690.7530.2442.321
Separated/Divorced0.8750.5751.3300.8640.5061.477
Never Married0.633*0.4130.9710.790.4091.526
Living with Partner0.7310.4021.3320.6390.2451.664
Household Income
$0–34,9990.541 *0.3650.8020.7260.3861.365
$35,000–$49,0000.6700.4161.0810.9960.5391.838
$50,000–$74,9990.8980.5711.4111.0230.5881.78
$75,000–$99,9990.427 *0.2290.7960.431 *0.1930.96
$100,000 and over (ref)
Insurance Status
Private (ref)
Other Coverage0.8520.5901.2300.9970.6031.65
Perceived Cancer Risk in Self
Less Likely1.0230.7101.4751.1360.7221.786
About as Likely (ref)
More Likely 4.232 *2.9855.9991.947 *1.133.354
Personal Cancer History
No Cancer
Breast or Ovary14.960 *10.29521.73820.266 *11.12236.927
Other Cancer 3.749 *2.4435.7543.777 *2.0526.952
* p < 0.05.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Back to TopTop