Louise S. Acheson

Reconsidering the family history in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to review the role of the family history in predictive genetic testing, describe how family history taking is practiced in adult primary care, identify the current barriers to appropriate application of the family history, and outline the requirements for a new family history tool for primary care.DESIGN: We reviewed current perspectives on the family history, identifying key references in the medical literature and web-based family history tools through discussions with multiple content experts in clinical genetics, family medicine, and internal medicine. We conducted a Medline query using the search terms family history and primary care to identify references from the past 10 years. To illustrate the usefulness of family history information, we calculated the predictive value of family history and genetic information for familial adenomatous polyposis using current references and standard formulas. We identified paper and web-based family history tools through discussions with content experts. We also conducted a search on the World Wide Web to identify resources for electronic medical record and family history.RESULTS: The family history is the most important tool for diagnosis and risk assessment in medical genetics, and promises to serve as a critical element in the use of predictive genetic testing in primary care. Traditional medical education about family history has often been unsophisticated and use of family history in adult primary care has been limited, compounded by multiple substantive barriers. Although there are numerous paper and computer-based aides for taking the family history, none currently meets all the needs of adult primary care.CONCLUSIONS: The patient’s family history remains a critical element in risk assessment for many conditions, but substantive barriers impede application in primary care practice, and evidence for its contribution to improved health outcomes is limited in this setting. Short of radical changes in reimbursement, new tools will be required to aid primary care physicians in the efficient collection and application of patient family history in the era of genetic testing.

Effect of Preventive Messages Tailored to Family History on Health Behaviors: The Family Healthware Impact Trial

PURPOSE We wanted to determine the impact of automated family history assessment and tailored messages for coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer on preventive behaviors compared with a standard preventive message. METHODS The study was a cluster-randomized clinical trial that included 41 primary care practices, the majority in the Midwest, using Family Healthware, a self-administered, Web-based tool that assesses familial risk for the diseases and provides personalized risk-tailored messages. Patients in the control group received an age- and sex-specific health message related to lifestyle and screening. Smoking cessation, fruit and vegetable intake, physical activity, aspirin use, blood pressure, and cholesterol and blood glucose screening were assessed at baseline and 6 months after the intervention. RESULTS Of 4,248 participants, 3,344 (78%) completed the study. Participants were white (91%), female (70%), and insured (97%), and had a mean age of 50.6 years (range 35–65 years). Intervention participants were more likely to increase daily fruit and vegetable consumption from 5 or fewer servings a day to 5 or more servings a day (OR = 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–1.58) and to increase physical activity (OR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.08–1.98) to 5 to 6 times a week for 30 minutes or more a week. The absolute differences in proportion were 3% and 4%, respectively. Intervention participants were less likely to move from not having cholesterol screening in the last 5 years to having their cholesterol measured within 5 years (OR = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17–0.67), with an absolute difference of 15%. CONCLUSIONS Messages tailored to an individual’s familial risk for 6 common diseases modestly increased self-reported physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake but reduced the likelihood of receiving cholesterol screening.

Familial risk for common diseases in primary care: the Family Healthware Impact Trial.

CONTEXT Family history is a risk factor for many common chronic diseases, yet it remains underutilized in primary care practice. BACKGROUND Family Healthware is a self-administered, web-based tool that assesses familial risk for CHD; stroke; diabetes; and colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer, and provides a personalized prevention plan based on familial risk. The Family Healthware Impact Trial evaluated the tool. DESIGN In this cluster RCT, participants completed baseline and 6-month follow-up surveys. The intervention group used Family Healthware directly after the baseline survey. Controls used the tool after completing the follow-up survey. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS Patients aged 35-65 years with no known diagnosis of these six diseases were enrolled from 41 primary care practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The prevalence of family-history-based risk for coronary heart disease (CHD); stroke; diabetes; and colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer was determined in a primary care population. RESULTS From 2005 to 2007, 3786 participants enrolled. Data analysis was undertaken from September 2007 to March 2008. Participants had a mean age of 50.6 years and were primarily white (91%) women (70%). Of the 3585 participants who completed the risk assessment tool, 82% had a strong or moderate familial risk for at least one of the diseases: CHD (strong=33%, moderate=26%); stroke (strong=15%, moderate=34%); diabetes (strong=11%, moderate=26%); colorectal cancer (strong=3%, moderate=11%); breast cancer (strong=10%, moderate=12%); and ovarian cancer (strong=4%, moderate=6%). Women had a significantly (p<0.04) higher familial risk than men for all diseases except colorectal and ovarian cancer. Overweight participants were significantly (p<or=0.02) more likely to have a strong family history for CHD, stroke, and diabetes. Older participants were significantly (p<or=0.02) more likely to report a strong family history for CHD and stroke as well as colorectal and breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS This self-administered, online tool delineated a substantial burden of family-history-based risk for these chronic diseases in an adult, primary care population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT00164658.

Genetics in Primary Care: A USA Faculty Development Initiative

The Genetics in Primary Care (GPC) project is a USA national faculty development initiative with the goal of enhancing the training of medical students and primary care residents by developing primary care faculty expertise in genetics. Educational strategies were developed for the project by an executive committee with input from an advisory committee, comprising individuals with primary care, medical education and genetics expertise. These committees identified the key issues in genetics education for primary care as (1) considering inherited disease in the differential diagnosis of common disorders; (2) using appropriate counseling strategies for genetic testing and diagnosis, and (3) understanding the implications of a genetic diagnosis for family members. The group emphasized the importance of a primary care perspective, which suggests that the clinical utility of genetic information is greatest when it has the potential to improve health outcomes. The group also noted that clinical practice already incorporates the use of family history information, providing a basis for discussing the application of genetic concepts in primary care. Genetics and primary care experts agreed that educational efforts will be most successful if they are integrated into existing primary care teaching programs, and use a case-based teaching format that incorporates both clinical and social dimensions of genetic disorders. Three core clinical skills were identified: (1) interpreting family history; (2) recognizing the variable clinical utility of genetic information, and (3) acquiring cultural competency. Three areas of potential controversy were identified as well: (1) the role of nondirective counseling versus shared decision-making in discussions of genetic testing; (2) the intrinsic value of genetic information when it does not influence health outcomes, and (3) indications for a genetics referral. The project provides an opportunity for ongoing discussion about these important issues.

Comparison of risk perceptions and beliefs across common chronic diseases.

OBJECTIVES Few studies have compared perceptions of risk, worry, severity and control across multiple diseases. This paper examines how these perceptions vary for heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and colon, breast, and ovarian cancers. METHODS The data for this study came from the Family Healthware Impact Trial (FHITr), conducted in the United States from 2005 to 2007. Healthy adults (N=2362) from primary care practices recorded their perceptions at baseline for each disease. Analyses were conducted controlling for study site and personal risk factors. RESULTS Perceived risk was significantly higher for cancers than for other diseases. Men worried most about getting heart disease; women worried most about getting breast cancer, followed by heart disease. Diabetes was perceived to be the least severe condition. Heart disease was perceived to be the most controllable compared to cancers, which were perceived to be the least controllable. Women had higher perceived risk and worry ratings compared to men for several diseases. CONCLUSIONS These data highlight how individuals comparatively view chronic diseases. Addressing prior disease perceptions when communicating multiple disease risks may facilitate an accurate understanding of risk for diseases, and help individuals to effectively identify and engage in relevant behaviors to reduce their risk.

Clinical utility of family history for cancer screening and referral in primary care: A report from the Family Healthware Impact Trial

Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of computerized familial risk assessment and tailored messages for identifying individuals for targeted cancer prevention strategies and motivating behavior change.Methods: We conducted a randomized clinical trial in primary care patients aged 35–65 years using Family Healthware, a self-administered, internet-based tool that collects family history for six common diseases including breast cancer, colon cancer, and ovarian cancer, stratifies risk into three tiers, and provides tailored prevention messages. Cancer screening adherence and consultation were measured at baseline and 6-month follow-up.Results: Of 3283 participants, 34% were at strong or moderate risk of at least one of the cancers. Family Healthware identified additional participants for whom earlier screening (colon cancer, 4.4%; breast cancer, women ages: 35–39 years, 9%) or genetic assessment (colon cancer, 2.5%; breast cancer, 10%; and ovarian cancer, 4%) may be indicated. Fewer than half were already adherent with risk-based screening. Screening adherence improved for all risk categories with no difference between intervention and control groups. Consultation with specialists did not differ between groups.Conclusion: Family Healthware identified patients for intensified cancer prevention. Engagement of clinicians and patients, integration with clinical decision support, and inclusion of nonfamilial risk factors may be necessary to achieve the full potential of computerized risk assessment.

Clinical genetics issues encountered by family physicians.

Purpose: To describe the genetics-related clinical issues encountered by family physicians, and the medical problems they referred to genetics consultants.Methods: Questionnaires were mailed to a nationwide, random sample of 498 practicing family physicians, asking how many times in the past year they discussed genetic information about 19 familial or genetic conditions with patients and what proportion of the families with each genetic condition were referred for genetics consultation. Factor analysis was used to group the conditions.Results: The response rate was 38% (n = 190). Respondents were similar to nonrespondents except that more were women. Most family physicians reported discussing the genetics of common cancers, cardiovascular disease, and Alzheimers disease with two or more patients in the past year. Thirteen percent had referred families for genetics assessment of breast-ovarian cancer but only two made genetics referrals for cardiovascular disease or dementia. 25% to 50% of family physicians had addressed genetic issues in at least one family with hemoglobinopathy, a blood clotting disorder, hemochromatosis, mental illness, vision loss or deafness, chromosome abnormality, infertility or pregnancy loss, congenital anomalies, mental retardation, and neurofibromatosis. Most cases were not referred to geneticists. Of respondents, 23% said that genetics consultation is very difficult to obtain or unavailable and 18% listed ethical and social dilemmas related to pursuing genetic diagnosis.Conclusion: Nationwide, family physicians address a variety of genetics issues with patients, most frequently consulting geneticists for perinatal conditions and familial cancers. Access to genetics consultation is more difficult in rural areas. These data may be used in organizing genetics services and in planning professional education programs for primary care clinicians.

Identifying and Testing for Hereditary Susceptibility to Common Cancers

Hereditary cancer syndromes account for an estimated 5% of breast, ovarian, and colon cancers. The rapid discovery of cancer‐related genes in the last 15 years has propelled the field of cancer genetic risk assessment forward. With patients becoming increasingly aware of available genetic testing options, it is important that various health professionals become knowledgeable in identifying and advising patients at increased risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome. This article will outline the components of providing a hereditary cancer risk assessment with a focus on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and hereditary colon cancer.

A Common 8q24 Variant and the Risk of Colon Cancer: A Population-Based Case-Control Study

Three recent studies identified common variants on 8q24 that confer modestly increased susceptibility to colorectal cancer. Here, we replicate the association in a population-based case-control study of colon cancer, including 561 cases and 721 unrelated controls. The rs6983267 marker was significantly associated with colon cancer risk. Compared with those homozygous for the T allele, the heterozygous and homozygous carriers for the G allele had an age-adjusted odds ratio of 1.39 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.88) and 1.68 (95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.33), respectively. An additive model showed strong evidence for a gene-dose response relationship (Ptrend = 0.0022). The association remained statistically significant when restricted to Caucasians only (527 cases and 679 controls; Ptrend = 0.0056). Further adjustment for other known risk factors did not alter the results. Stratified analysis revealed no evidence for effect modification by family history of colorectal cancer, age, or gender. These data replicate the association identified from recent studies, providing additional evidence supporting the rs6983267 genetic polymorphism as a marker predisposing to colon cancer. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(2):339–42)

Association of common genetic variants in SMAD7 and risk of colon cancer

Two recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified three common variants in SMAD7 (rs4464148, rs4939827 and rs12953717) that confer modest susceptibility to colorectal cancer. Here, we replicated the association of rs4464148 with colon cancer in a population-based case-control study (561 cases and 721 controls). Compared with the TT genotype, those with CT and CC had an adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval of 1.06 (0.82-1.38) and 1.86 (1.17-2.96), respectively (P(trend) = 0.04). However, stratified analyses revealed that this association was limited to women only [OR = 1.25 (0.88-1.78) for CT and OR = 2.76 (1.53-4.98) for CC, P(trend) = 0.002, P(interaction) = 0.08], which was not noted in any GWAS. Similarly, we found evidence for association with both rs4939827 and rs12953717 in women only (P = 0.007 in dominant rs4939827 model and P = 0.015 in recessive rs12953717 model), but not in men (P > 0.05) and evidence of an interaction with gender (P = 0.015 for rs4939827 and P = 0.061 for rs12953717). Similar effect modification was found in haplotype analyses. Our data add evidence supporting these genetic variants as markers predisposing to colon cancer, specifically in women.