Abstract
Purpose
This study aimed to develop an online educational program for using polygenic risk
score (PRS) for breast and ovarian cancer risk assessments and to evaluate the impact
on the attitudes, confidence, knowledge, and preparedness of genetic health care providers
(GHPs).
Methods
The educational program comprises an online module that covers the theoretical aspects
of PRS and a facilitated virtual workshop with prerecorded role-plays and case discussions.
Data were collected in pre- and posteducation surveys. Eligible participants were
GHPs working in Australian familial cancer clinics registered to recruit patients
for a breast and ovarian cancer PRS clinical trial (n = 12).
Results
A total of 124 GHPs completed the PRS education, of whom 80 (64%) and 67 (41%) completed
the pre- and posteducation surveys, respectively. Before education, GHPs reported
limited experience, confidence, and preparedness using PRS, but they recognized its
potential benefits. After education, GHPs indicated improved attitudes (P ≤ .001), confidence (P ≤ .001), knowledge (P ≤ .001), and preparedness (P ≤ .001) to use PRS. Most GHPs thought that the program entirely met their learning
needs (73%) and was completely relevant to their clinical practice (88%). GHPs identified
PRS implementation barriers, including limited funding models, diversity issues, and
need for clinical guidelines.
Conclusion
Our education program improved GHP attitudes, confidence, knowledge, and preparedness
for using PRS/personalized risk and provides a framework for the development of future
programs.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
ACMG Member Login
Are you an ACMG Member? Sign in for online access.Subscribe:
Subscribe to Genetics in MedicineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Breast cancer risk genes — association analysis in more than 113,000 women.N Engl J Med. 2021; 384: 428-439https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1913948
- Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci.Nature. 2017; 551: 92-94https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24284
- Evaluation of polygenic risk scores for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017; 109: 1-15https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw302
- Genetic modifiers of CHEK2∗1100delC-associated breast cancer risk.Genet Med. 2017; 19: 599-603https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.147
- Association of a polygenic risk score with breast cancer among women carriers of high- and moderate-risk breast cancer genes.JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3e208501https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8501
- Polygenic background modifies penetrance of monogenic variants conferring risk for coronary artery disease, breast cancer, or colorectal cancer.Nat Commun. 2020; 11: 3635https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17374-3
- Polygenic prediction of breast cancer: comparison of genetic predictors and implications for risk stratification.BMC Cancer. 2019; 19: 557https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5783-1
- Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes.Am J Hum Genet. 2019; 104: 21-34https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.11.002
- Clinical applicability of the polygenic risk score for breast cancer risk prediction in familial cases.J Med Genet. 2023; 60: 327-336https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg-2022-108502
- Addition of a 161-SNP polygenic risk score to family history-based risk prediction: impact on clinical management in non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families.J Med Genet. 2019; 56: 581-589https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106072
- A role for common genomic variants in the assessment of familial breast cancer.J Clin Lipidol. 2017; 30: 4330-4336https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.41.7469
- BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors.Genet Med. 2019; 21: 1708-1718https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0406-9
- Breast cancer screening in the precision medicine era: risk-based screening in a population-based trial.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017; 109https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw290
- Panel testing for familial breast cancer: calibrating the tension between research and clinical care.J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34: 1455-1459https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.7454
- Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.JAMA. 2017; 317: 2402-2416https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7112
- Comprehensive epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and epidemiological risk factors.J Med Genet. 2022; 59: 632-643https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2021-107904
- Communicating polygenic risk scores in the familial breast cancer clinic.Patient Educ Couns. 2021; 104: 2512-2521https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.02.046
- Making sense of SNPs: women’s understanding and experiences of receiving a personalized profile of their breast cancer risks.J Genet Couns. 2018; 27: 702-708https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0162-z
- Knowledge, views and expectations for cancer polygenic risk testing in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey of health professionals.Clin Genet. 2021; 100: 430-439https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.14025
- Breast cancer polygenic risk scores in the clinical cancer genetic counseling setting: current practices and impact on patient management.J Genet Couns. 2021; 30: 588-597https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1347
- Polygenic risk scores and risk-stratified breast cancer screening: familiarity and perspectives of health care professionals.Genet Med. 2022; 24: 2380-2388https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2022.08.001
- Patient and provider attitudes toward genomic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility: a mixed method study.BMC Health Serv Res. 2013; 13: 279https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-279
- Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: effect of polygenic risk modification on breast cancer risk management and prevention: the PRiMo Trial 2020.(Accessed February 17, 2023)
- Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.Prentice Hall, Inc, 1984https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7223-8.50017-4
- Adult learning theories: implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83: AMEE Guide No. 83.Med Teach. 2013; 35: e1561-e1572https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.828153
- The four levels: an overview.in: Evaluating Training Programs: the Four Levels. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2006
- Advanced training programs: clinical genetics. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians.(Accessed February 16, 2023)
- Genetic testing for heritable pathogenic variants: BRCA1 and BRCA2 – genetic testing. eviQ.(Accessed January 16, 2023)
- Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: qualitative interviews with the Australian public.Health Expect. 2021; 24: 1326-1336https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13267
- Influence of lived experience on risk perception among women who received a breast cancer polygenic risk score: “another piece of the pie.J Genet Couns. 2021; 30: 849-860https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1384
- Women’s responses and understanding of polygenic breast cancer risk information.Fam Cancer. 2020; 19: 297-306https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-020-00185-2
- High-risk women’s risk perception after receiving personalized polygenic breast cancer risk information.J Community Genet. 2019; 10: 197-206https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-018-0378-0
- Clinical applications of polygenic breast cancer risk: a critical review and perspectives of an emerging field.Breast Cancer Res. 2020; 22: 21https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-020-01260-3
- The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23.Med Teach. 2012; 34: e421-e444https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.680939
- Effectiveness of continuing medical education: updated synthesis of systematic reviews. Accreditation Council for Continuing Education.(Accessed December 1, 2022)
- Preparing medical specialists for genomic medicine: continuing education should include opportunities for experiential learning.Front Genet. 2020; 11: 151https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00151
- The Adult Learner: the Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development.Routledge, 2020
- Theories and models for genomics education and training.in: Kumar D. Genomic Medicine Skills and Competencies. Academic Press, 2022: 1-15
- Inductive teaching and learning methods: definitions, comparisons, and research bases.J Eng Educ. 2006; 95: 123-138https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x
Article info
Publication history
Published online: May 03, 2023
Accepted:
April 27,
2023
Received in revised form:
April 26,
2023
Received:
April 3,
2023
Footnotes
Tatiane Yanes and Courtney K. Wallingford contributed equally to this work.
Identification
Copyright
© 2023 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
