Screening High-Risk Women Veterans for Breast Cancer

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/04/2023 - 17:17

The number of women seeking care from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is increasing.1 In 2015, there were 2 million women veterans in the United States, which is 9.4% of the total veteran population. This group is expected to increase at an average of about 18,000 women per year for the next 10 years.2 The percentage of women veterans who are US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) users aged 45 to 64 years rose 46% from 2000 to 2015.1,3-4 It is estimated that 15% of veterans who used VA services in 2020 were women.1 Nineteen percent of women veterans are Black.1 The median age of women veterans in 2015 was 50 years.5 Breast cancer is the leading cancer affecting female veterans, and data suggest they have an increased risk of breast cancer based on unique service-related exposures.1,6-9

In the US, about 10 million women are eligible for breast cancer preventive therapy, including, but not limited to, medications, surgery, or lifestyle changes.10 Secondary prevention options include change in surveillance that can reduce their risk or identify cancer at an earlier stage when treatment is more effective. The United States Preventive Services Task Force, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the Oncology Nursing Society recommend screening women aged ≥ 35 years to assess breast cancer risk.11-18 If a woman is at increased risk, she may be a candidate for chemoprevention, prozphylactic surgery, and possibly an enhanced screening regimen.

Urban and minority women are an understudied population. Most veterans (75%) live in urban or suburban settings.19,20 Urban veteran women constitute an important potential study population.

Chemoprevention measures have been underused because of factors involving both women and their health care providers. A large proportion of women are unaware of their higher risk status due to lack of adequate screening and risk assessment.21,22 In addition to patient lack of awareness of their high-risk status, primary care physicians are also reluctant to prescribe chemopreventive agents due to a lack of comfort or familiarity with the risks and benefits.23-26 The STAR2015, BCPT2005, IBIS2014, MAP3 2011, IBIS-I 2014, and IBIS II 2014 studies clearly demonstrate a 49 to 62% reduction in risk for women using chemoprevention such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or aromatase inhibitors, respectively.27-32 Yet only 4 to 9% of high-risk women not enrolled in a clinical trial are using chemoprevention.33-39

The possibility of developing breast cancer also may be increased because of a positive family history or being a member of a family in which there is a known susceptibility gene mutation.40 Based on these risk factors, women may be eligible for tailored follow-up and genetic counseling.41-44

Nationally, 7 to 10% of the civilian US population will experience posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).45 The rates are remarkably higher for women veterans, with roughly 20% diagnosed with PTSD.46,47 Anxiety and PTSD have been implicated in poor adherence to medical advice.48,49

In 2014, a national VA multidisciplinary group focused on breast cancer prevention, detection, treatment, and research to address breast health in the growing population of women veterans. High-risk breast cancer screenings are not routinely carried out by the VA in primary care, women’s health, or oncology services. Furthermore, the recording of screening questionnaire results was not synchronized until a standard questionnaire was created and approved as a template by this group in the VA electronic medical record (EMR) in 2015.

Several prediction models can identify which women are at an increased risk of developing breast cancer. The most commonly used risk assessment model, the Gail breast cancer risk assessment tool (BCRAT), has been refined to include women of additional ethnicities (https://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool).

This pilot project was launched to identify an effective manner to screen women veterans regarding their risk of developing breast cancer and refer them for chemoprevention education or genetic counseling as appropriate.

 

 

Methods

A high-risk breast cancer screening questionnaire based on the Gail BCRAT and including lifestyle questions was developed and included as a note template in the VA EMR. The James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, NY (JJPVAMC) and the Washington DC VA Medical Center (DCVAMC) ran a pilot study between 2015 and 2018 using this breast cancer screening questionnaire to collect data from women veterans. Quality Executive Committee and institutional review board approvals were granted respectively.

Eligibility criteria included women aged ≥ 35 years with no personal history of breast cancer. Most patients were self-referred, but participants also were recruited during VA Breast Cancer Awareness month events, health fairs, or at informational tables in the hospital lobbies. After completing the 20 multiple choice questionnaire with a study team member, either in person or over the phone, a 5-year and lifetime risk of invasive breast cancer was calculated using the Gail BCRAT. A woman is considered high risk and eligible for chemoprevention if her 5-year risk is > 1.66% or her lifetime risk is ≥ 20%. Eligibility for genetic counseling is based on the Breast Cancer Referral Screening Tool, which includes a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer and Jewish ancestry.

All patients were notified of their average or high risk status by a clinician. Those who were deemed to be average risk received a follow-up letter in the mail with instructions (eg, to follow-up with a yearly mammogram). Those who were deemed to be high risk for developing breast cancer were asked to come in for an appointment with the study principal investigator (a VA oncologist/breast cancer specialist) to discuss prevention options, further screening, or referrals to genetic counseling. Depending on a patient’s other health factors, a woman at high risk for developing breast cancer also may be a candidate for chemoprevention with tamoxifen, raloxifene, exemestane, anastrozole, or letrozole.

Data on the participant’s lifestyle, including exercise, diet, and smoking, were evaluated to determine whether these factors had an impact on risk status.

Results

The JJP and DC VAMCs screened 103 women veterans between 2015 and 2018. Four patients were excluded for nonveteran (spousal) status, leaving 99 women veterans with a mean age of 54 years. The most common self-reported races were Black (60%), non-Hispanic White (14%), and Hispanic or Latino (13%) (Table 1).

Women veterans in our study were nearly 3-times more likely than the general population were to receive a high-risk Gail Score/BCRAT (35% vs 13%, respectively).50,51 Of this subset, 46% had breast biopsies, and 86% had a positive family history. Thirty-one percent of Black women in our study were high risk, while nationally, 8.2 to 13.3% of Black women aged 50 to 59 years are considered high risk.50,51 Of the Black high-risk group with a high Gail/BCRAT score, 94% had a positive family history, and 33% had a history of breast biopsy (Table 2).

Of the 35 high-risk patients 26 (74%) patients accepted consultations for chemoprevention and 5 (19%) started chemoprevention. Of this high-risk group, 13 (37%) patients were referred for genetic counseling (Table 3).44 The prevalence of PTSD was present in 31% of high-risk women and 29% of the cohort (Figure).The lifestyle questions indicated that, among all participants, 79% had an overweight or obese body mass index; 58% exercised weekly; 51% consumed alcohol; 14% were smokers; and 21% consumed 3 to 4 servings of fruits/vegetables daily.

 

 

Discussion

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women.52 The number of women with breast cancer in the VHA has more than tripled from 1995 to 2012.1 The lifetime risk of developing breast cancer in the general population is about 13%.50 This rate can be affected by risk factors including age, hormone exposure, family history, radiation exposure, and lifestyle factors, such as weight and alcohol use.6,52-56 In the United States, invasive breast cancer affects 1 in 8 women.50,52,57

Our screened population showed nearly 3 times as many women veterans were at an increased risk for breast cancer when compared with historical averages in US women. This difference may be based on a high rate of prior breast biopsies or positive family history, although a provocative study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database showed military women to have higher rates of breast cancer as well.9 Historically, Blacks are vastly understudied in clinical research with only 5% representation on a national level.5,58 The urban locations of both pilot sites (Washington, DC and Bronx, NY) allowed for the inclusion of minority patients in our study. We found that the rates of breast cancer in Black women veterans to be higher than seen nationally, possibly prompting further screening initiatives for this understudied population.

Our pilot study’s chemoprevention utilization (19%) was double the < 10% seen in the national population.33-35 The presence of a knowledgeable breast health practitioner to recruit study participants and offer personalized counseling to women veterans is a likely factor in overcoming barriers to chemopreventive acceptance. These participants may have been motivated to seek care for their high-risk status given a strong family history and prior breast biopsies.

Interestingly, a 3-fold higher PTSD rate was seen in this pilot population (29%) when compared with PTSD rates in the general female population (7-10%) and still one-third higher than the general population of women veterans (20%).45-47 Mental health, anxiety, and PTSD have been barriers to patients who sought treatment and have been implicated in poor adherence to medical advice.48,49 Cancer screening can induce anxiety in patients, and it may be amplified in patients with PTSD. It was remarkable that although adherence with screening recommendations is decreased when PTSD is present, our patient population demonstrated a higher rate of screening adherence.

Women who are seen at the VA often use multiple clinical specialties, and their EMR can be accessed across VA medical centers nationwide. Therefore, identifying women veterans who meet screening criteria is easily attainable within the VA.

When comparing high-risk with average risk women, the lifestyle results (BMI, smoking history, exercise and consumption of fruits, vegetables and alcohol) were essentially the same. Lifestyle factors were similar to national population rates and were unlikely to impact risk levels.

Limitations

Study limitations included a high number of self-referrals and the large percentage of patients with a family history of breast cancer, making them more likely to seek screening. The higher-than-average risk of breast cancer may be driven by a high rate of breast biopsies and a strong family history. Lifestyle metrics could not be accurately compared to other national assessments of lifestyle factors due to the difference in data points that we used or the format of our questions.

 

 

Conclusions

As the number of women veterans increases and the incidence of breast cancer in women veterans rise, chemoprevention options should follow national guidelines. To our knowledge, this is the only oncology study with 60% Black women veterans. This study had a higher participation rate for Black women veterans than is typically seen in national research studies and shows the VA to be a germane source for further understanding of an understudied population that may benefit from increased screening for breast cancer.

A team-based, multidisciplinary model that meets the unique healthcare needs of women veterans results in a patient-centric delivery of care for assessing breast cancer risk status and prevention options. This model can be replicated nationally by directing primary care physicians and women’s health practitioners to a risk-assessment questionnaire and referring high-risk women for appropriate preventative care. Given that these results show chemoprevention adherence rates doubled those seen nationally, perhaps techniques used within this VA pilot study may be adapted to decrease breast cancer incidence nationally.

Since the rate of PTSD among women veterans is triple the national average, we would expect adherence rates to be lower in our patient cohort. However, the multidisciplinary approach we used in this study (eg, 1:1 consultation with oncologist; genetic counseling referrals; mental health support available), may have improved adherence rates. Perhaps the high rates of PTSD seen in the VA patient population can be a useful way to explore patient adherence rates in those with mental illness and medical conditions.

Future research with a larger cohort may lead to greater insight into the correlation between PTSD and adherence to treatment. Exploring the connection between breast cancer, epigenetics, and specific military service-related exposures could be an area of analysis among this veteran population exhibiting increased breast cancer rates. VAMCs are situated in rural, suburban, and urban locations across the United States and offers a diverse socioeconomic and ethnic patient population for inclusion in clinical investigations. Women veterans make up a small subpopulation of women in the United States, but it is worth considering VA patients as an untapped resource for research collaboration.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Steven Sanchez and Marissa Vallette, PhD, Breast Health Research Group. This research project was approved by the James J. Peters VA Medical Center Quality Executive Committee and the Washington, DC VA Medical Center Institutional Review Board. This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. This work did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

References

1. US Department of Veterans Affairs. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics. The past, present and future of women veterans. Published February 2017. Accessed April 28, 2021. https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/specialreports/women_veterans_2015_final.pdf.

2. Frayne SM, Carney DV, Bastian L, et al. The VA Women’s Health Practice-Based Research Network: amplifying women veterans’ voices in VA research. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S504-S509. doi:10.1007/s11606-013-2476-3

3. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Women’s Health Evaluation Initiative, Women Veterans Health Strategic Health Care Group. Sourcebook: women veterans in the Veterans Health Administration. Volume 1: Sociodemographic characteristics and use of VHA care. Published December 2010. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=2455

4. Bean-Mayberry B, Yano EM, Bayliss N, Navratil J, Weisman CS, Scholle SH. Federally funded comprehensive women’s health centers: leading innovation in women’s healthcare delivery. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16(9):1281-1290. doi:10.1089/jwh.2006.0284

5. US Department of Veterans Affairs. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics.VA utilization profile FY 2016. Published November 2017. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/QuickFacts/VA_Utilization_Profile.PDF

6. Ekenga CC, Parks CG, Sandler DP. Chemical exposures in the workplace and breast cancer risk: a prospective cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2015;137(7):1765-1774. doi:10.1002/ijc.29545

7. Rennix CP, Quinn MM, Amoroso PJ, Eisen EA, Wegman DH. Risk of breast cancer among enlisted Army women occupationally exposed to volatile organic compounds. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(3):157-167. doi:10.1002/ajim.20201

8. Ritz B. Cancer mortality among workers exposed to chemicals during uranium processing. J Occup Environ Med. 1999;41(7):556-566. doi:10.1097/00043764-199907000-00004

9. Zhu K, Devesa SS, Wu H, et al. Cancer incidence in the U.S. military population: comparison with rates from the SEER program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(6):1740-1745. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0041

10. Freedman AN, Yu B, Gail MH, et al. Benefit/risk assessment for breast cancer chemoprevention with raloxifene or tamoxifen for women age 50 years or older [published correction appears in J Clin Oncol. 2013 Nov 10;31(32):4167]. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(17):2327-2333. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.33.0258

11. Greene, H. Cancer prevention, screening and early detection. In: Gobel BH, Triest-Robertson S, Vogel WH, eds. Advanced Oncology Nursing Certification Review and Resource Manual. 3rd ed. Oncology Nursing Society; 2016:1-34. https://www.ons.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/2%20ADVPrac%20chapter%201.pdf

12. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Breast Cancer Risk Reduction. Version 1.2021 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Updated March 24, 2021 Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast_risk.pdf

13. US Preventive Services Task Force. Breast cancer: Medications use to reduce risk. Updated September 3, 2019. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/breast-cancer-medications-for-risk-reduction

14. Moyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Medications to decrease the risk for breast cancer in women: recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(10):698-708. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-10-201311190-00717

15. Boucher JE. Chemoprevention: an overview of pharmacologic agents and nursing considerations. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2018;22(3):350-353. doi:10.1188/18.CJON.350-353

16. Nichols HB, Stürmer T, Lee VS, et al. Breast cancer chemoprevention in an integrated health care setting. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2017;1:1-12. doi:10.1200/CCI.16.00059

17. Bevers TB, Helvie M, Bonaccio E, et al. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16(11):1362-1389. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2018.0083

18. Visvanathan K, Hurley P, Bantug E, et al. Use of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline [published correction appears in J Clin Oncol. 2013 Dec 1;31(34):4383]. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(23):2942-2962. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.49.3122

19. Sealy-Jefferson S, Roseland ME, Cote ML, et al. rural-urban residence and stage at breast cancer diagnosis among postmenopausal women: The Women’s Health Initiative. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019;28(2):276-283. doi:10.1089/jwh.2017.6884

20. Holder KA. Veterans in rural America: 2011-2015. Published January 25, 2017. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/acs/acs-36.html

21. Owens WL, Gallagher TJ, Kincheloe MJ, Ruetten VL. Implementation in a large health system of a program to identify women at high risk for breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(2):85-88. doi:10.1200/JOP.2010.000107

2. Pivot X, Viguier J, Touboul C, et al. Breast cancer screening controversy: too much or not enough?. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2015;24 Suppl:S73-S76. doi:10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000145

23. Bidassie B, Kovach A, Vallette MA, et al. Breast Cancer risk assessment and chemoprevention use among veterans affairs primary care providers: a national online survey. Mil Med. 2020;185(3-4):512-518. doi:10.1093/milmed/usz291

24. Brewster AM, Davidson NE, McCaskill-Stevens W. Chemoprevention for breast cancer: overcoming barriers to treatment. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2012;85-90. doi:10.14694/EdBook_AM.2012.32.152

25. Meyskens FL Jr, Curt GA, Brenner DE, et al. Regulatory approval of cancer risk-reducing (chemopreventive) drugs: moving what we have learned into the clinic. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4(3):311-323. doi:10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-09-0014

26. Tice JA, Kerlikowske K. Screening and prevention of breast cancer in primary care. Prim Care. 2009;36(3):533-558. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2009.04.003

27. Vogel VG. Selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer chemoprevention. Curr Drug Targets. 2011;12(13):1874-1887. doi:10.2174/138945011798184164

28. Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial [published correction appears in JAMA. 2006 Dec 27;296(24):2926] [published correction appears in JAMA. 2007 Sep 5;298(9):973]. JAMA. 2006;295(23):2727-2741. doi:10.1001/jama.295.23.joc60074

29. Pruthi S, Heisey RE, Bevers TB. Chemoprevention for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3230-3235. doi:10.1245/s10434-015-4715-9

30. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Forbes JF, et al. Anastrozole for prevention of breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women (IBIS-II): an international, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial [published correction appears in Lancet. 2014 Mar 22;383(9922):1040] [published correction appears in Lancet. 2017 Mar 11;389(10073):1010]. Lancet. 2014;383(9922):1041-1048. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62292-8

31. Bozovic-Spasojevic I, Azambuja E, McCaskill-Stevens W, Dinh P, Cardoso F. Chemoprevention for breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2012;38(5):329-339. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.07.005

32. Gabriel EM, Jatoi I. Breast cancer chemoprevention. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2012;12(2):223-228. doi:10.1586/era.11.206

<--pagebreak-->

33. Crew KD, Albain KS, Hershman DL, Unger JM, Lo SS. How do we increase uptake of tamoxifen and other anti-estrogens for breast cancer prevention?. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2017;3:20. Published 2017 May 19. doi:10.1038/s41523-017-0021-y

34. Ropka ME, Keim J, Philbrick JT. Patient decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(18):3090-3095. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.27.8077

35. Smith SG, Sestak I, Forster A, et al. Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(4):575-590. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv590

36. Grann VR, Patel PR, Jacobson JS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2-affected mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Feb;125(3):837-847. doi:10.1007/s10549-010-1043-4

37. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Alés-Martínez JE, et al. Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct 6;365(14):1361]. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(25):2381-2391. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1103507

38. Kmietowicz Z. Five in six women reject drugs that could reduce their risk of breast cancer. BMJ. 2015;351:h6650. Published 2015 Dec 8. doi:10.1136/bmj.h6650

39. Nelson HD, Fu R, Griffin JC, Nygren P, Smith ME, Humphrey L. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of medications to reduce risk for primary breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):703-235. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00147

40. Dahabreh IJ, Wieland LS, Adam GP, Halladay C, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Core needle and open surgery biopsy for diagnosis of breast lesions: an update to the 2009 report. Published September 2014. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK246878

41. National Cancer Institute. Genetics of breast and ovarian cancer (PDQ)—health profession version. Updated February 12, 2021. Accessed April 12, 2021. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/genetics/breast-and-ovarian/HealthProfessional

42. US Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences The sister study. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://sisterstudy.niehs.nih.gov/english/NIEHS.htm

43. Tutt A, Ashworth A. Can genetic testing guide treatment in breast cancer?. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(18):2774-2780. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.009

44. Katz SJ, Ward KC, Hamilton AS, et al. Gaps in receipt of clinically indicated genetic counseling after diagnosis of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(12):1218-1224. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.76.2369

45. US Department of Veterans Affairs. PTSD: National Center for PTSD. How common is PTSD in adults? Updated October 17, 2019. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/common/common_adults.asp

46. US Department of Veterans Affairs. PTSD: National Center for PTSD. How common is PTSD in women? Updated October 16, 2019. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/common/common_women.asp

47. US Department of Veterans Affairs. PTSD: National Center for PTSD. How common is PTSD in veterans? Updated September 24, 2018. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/common/common_veterans.asp

48. Lindberg NM, Wellisch D. Anxiety and compliance among women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Behav Med. 2001;23(4):298-303. doi:10.1207/S15324796ABM2304_9

49. DiMatteo MR, Lepper HS, Croghan TW. Depression is a risk factor for noncompliance with medical treatment: meta-analysis of the effects of anxiety and depression on patient adherence. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(14):2101-2107. doi:10.1001/archinte.160.14.2101

50. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR appendix: breast cancer rates among black women and white women. Updated October 13, 2016. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/trends_invasive.htm

51. Richardson LC, Henley SJ, Miller JW, Massetti G, Thomas CC. Patterns and trends in age-specific black-white differences in breast cancer incidence and mortality - United States, 1999-2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(40):1093-1098. Published 2016 Oct 14. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6540a1

52. Brody JG, Moysich KB, Humblet O, Attfield KR, Beehler GP, Rudel RA. Environmental pollutants and breast cancer: epidemiologic studies. Cancer. 2007;109(12 Suppl):2667-2711. doi:10.1002/cncr.22655

53. Brophy JT, Keith MM, Watterson A, et al. Breast cancer risk in relation to occupations with exposure to carcinogens and endocrine disruptors: a Canadian case-control study. Environ Health. 2012;11:87. Published 2012 Nov 19. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-11-87

54. Labrèche F, Goldberg MS, Valois MF, Nadon L. Postmenopausal breast cancer and occupational exposures. Occup Environ Med. 2010;67(4):263-269. doi:10.1136/oem.2009.049817

55. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Interagency Breast Cancer & Environmental Research Coordinating Committee. Breast cancer and the environment: prioritizing prevention. Updated March 8, 2013. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/boards/ibcercc/index.cfm

56. Gail MH, Costantino JP, Pee D, et al. Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women [published correction appears in J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Aug 6;100(15):1118] [published correction appears in J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Mar 5;100(5):373]. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(23):1782-1792. doi:10.1093/jnci/djm223

57. Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, Williams MV, Moody-Ayers S. Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14(9):537-546. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.07048.x

58. Braunstein JB, Sherber NS, Schulman SP, Ding EL, Powe NR. Race, medical researcher distrust, perceived harm, and willingness to participate in cardiovascular prevention trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2008;87(1):1-9. doi:10.1097/MD.0b013e3181625d78

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Yeun-Hee Anna Park is Chief of Hematology/Oncology; Alison Keller is a Research Coordinator; and Ta-Chueh Melody Hsu is a Research Nurse Practitioner, all at James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bronx, New York. Balmatee Bidassie is an Industrial Engineer VA Center for Applied Systems Engineering (VA-CASE), VISN11 - Veterans Engineering Resource Center (VERC) at Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana. Vickie Venne was a Senior Genetic Counselor for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Genomic Medicine Services, and Sarah Colonna is a Hematologist/Oncologist; both at George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah. Douglas Hawley is a Hematologist/Oncologist at Cincinnati Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. Lori Hoffman-Högg is a ONS Clinical Nurse Advisor for the Oncology Field Advisory Committee and VHA National Program Manager for Prevention Policy at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Durham, North Carolina and VHA Office of Nursing Services, Washington, DC. Bernadette Heron is a Program Manager at Veterans Health Administration, Pharmacy Benefits Management Services in Hines, Illinois. Anita Aggarwal is a Hematologist/Oncologist Washington Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 38(2)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S35-S41
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Yeun-Hee Anna Park is Chief of Hematology/Oncology; Alison Keller is a Research Coordinator; and Ta-Chueh Melody Hsu is a Research Nurse Practitioner, all at James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bronx, New York. Balmatee Bidassie is an Industrial Engineer VA Center for Applied Systems Engineering (VA-CASE), VISN11 - Veterans Engineering Resource Center (VERC) at Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana. Vickie Venne was a Senior Genetic Counselor for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Genomic Medicine Services, and Sarah Colonna is a Hematologist/Oncologist; both at George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah. Douglas Hawley is a Hematologist/Oncologist at Cincinnati Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. Lori Hoffman-Högg is a ONS Clinical Nurse Advisor for the Oncology Field Advisory Committee and VHA National Program Manager for Prevention Policy at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Durham, North Carolina and VHA Office of Nursing Services, Washington, DC. Bernadette Heron is a Program Manager at Veterans Health Administration, Pharmacy Benefits Management Services in Hines, Illinois. Anita Aggarwal is a Hematologist/Oncologist Washington Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.

Author and Disclosure Information

Yeun-Hee Anna Park is Chief of Hematology/Oncology; Alison Keller is a Research Coordinator; and Ta-Chueh Melody Hsu is a Research Nurse Practitioner, all at James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bronx, New York. Balmatee Bidassie is an Industrial Engineer VA Center for Applied Systems Engineering (VA-CASE), VISN11 - Veterans Engineering Resource Center (VERC) at Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana. Vickie Venne was a Senior Genetic Counselor for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Genomic Medicine Services, and Sarah Colonna is a Hematologist/Oncologist; both at George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah. Douglas Hawley is a Hematologist/Oncologist at Cincinnati Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. Lori Hoffman-Högg is a ONS Clinical Nurse Advisor for the Oncology Field Advisory Committee and VHA National Program Manager for Prevention Policy at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Durham, North Carolina and VHA Office of Nursing Services, Washington, DC. Bernadette Heron is a Program Manager at Veterans Health Administration, Pharmacy Benefits Management Services in Hines, Illinois. Anita Aggarwal is a Hematologist/Oncologist Washington Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.

Article PDF
Article PDF

The number of women seeking care from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is increasing.1 In 2015, there were 2 million women veterans in the United States, which is 9.4% of the total veteran population. This group is expected to increase at an average of about 18,000 women per year for the next 10 years.2 The percentage of women veterans who are US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) users aged 45 to 64 years rose 46% from 2000 to 2015.1,3-4 It is estimated that 15% of veterans who used VA services in 2020 were women.1 Nineteen percent of women veterans are Black.1 The median age of women veterans in 2015 was 50 years.5 Breast cancer is the leading cancer affecting female veterans, and data suggest they have an increased risk of breast cancer based on unique service-related exposures.1,6-9

In the US, about 10 million women are eligible for breast cancer preventive therapy, including, but not limited to, medications, surgery, or lifestyle changes.10 Secondary prevention options include change in surveillance that can reduce their risk or identify cancer at an earlier stage when treatment is more effective. The United States Preventive Services Task Force, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the Oncology Nursing Society recommend screening women aged ≥ 35 years to assess breast cancer risk.11-18 If a woman is at increased risk, she may be a candidate for chemoprevention, prozphylactic surgery, and possibly an enhanced screening regimen.

Urban and minority women are an understudied population. Most veterans (75%) live in urban or suburban settings.19,20 Urban veteran women constitute an important potential study population.

Chemoprevention measures have been underused because of factors involving both women and their health care providers. A large proportion of women are unaware of their higher risk status due to lack of adequate screening and risk assessment.21,22 In addition to patient lack of awareness of their high-risk status, primary care physicians are also reluctant to prescribe chemopreventive agents due to a lack of comfort or familiarity with the risks and benefits.23-26 The STAR2015, BCPT2005, IBIS2014, MAP3 2011, IBIS-I 2014, and IBIS II 2014 studies clearly demonstrate a 49 to 62% reduction in risk for women using chemoprevention such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or aromatase inhibitors, respectively.27-32 Yet only 4 to 9% of high-risk women not enrolled in a clinical trial are using chemoprevention.33-39

The possibility of developing breast cancer also may be increased because of a positive family history or being a member of a family in which there is a known susceptibility gene mutation.40 Based on these risk factors, women may be eligible for tailored follow-up and genetic counseling.41-44

Nationally, 7 to 10% of the civilian US population will experience posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).45 The rates are remarkably higher for women veterans, with roughly 20% diagnosed with PTSD.46,47 Anxiety and PTSD have been implicated in poor adherence to medical advice.48,49

In 2014, a national VA multidisciplinary group focused on breast cancer prevention, detection, treatment, and research to address breast health in the growing population of women veterans. High-risk breast cancer screenings are not routinely carried out by the VA in primary care, women’s health, or oncology services. Furthermore, the recording of screening questionnaire results was not synchronized until a standard questionnaire was created and approved as a template by this group in the VA electronic medical record (EMR) in 2015.

Several prediction models can identify which women are at an increased risk of developing breast cancer. The most commonly used risk assessment model, the Gail breast cancer risk assessment tool (BCRAT), has been refined to include women of additional ethnicities (https://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool).

This pilot project was launched to identify an effective manner to screen women veterans regarding their risk of developing breast cancer and refer them for chemoprevention education or genetic counseling as appropriate.

 

 

Methods

A high-risk breast cancer screening questionnaire based on the Gail BCRAT and including lifestyle questions was developed and included as a note template in the VA EMR. The James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, NY (JJPVAMC) and the Washington DC VA Medical Center (DCVAMC) ran a pilot study between 2015 and 2018 using this breast cancer screening questionnaire to collect data from women veterans. Quality Executive Committee and institutional review board approvals were granted respectively.

Eligibility criteria included women aged ≥ 35 years with no personal history of breast cancer. Most patients were self-referred, but participants also were recruited during VA Breast Cancer Awareness month events, health fairs, or at informational tables in the hospital lobbies. After completing the 20 multiple choice questionnaire with a study team member, either in person or over the phone, a 5-year and lifetime risk of invasive breast cancer was calculated using the Gail BCRAT. A woman is considered high risk and eligible for chemoprevention if her 5-year risk is > 1.66% or her lifetime risk is ≥ 20%. Eligibility for genetic counseling is based on the Breast Cancer Referral Screening Tool, which includes a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer and Jewish ancestry.

All patients were notified of their average or high risk status by a clinician. Those who were deemed to be average risk received a follow-up letter in the mail with instructions (eg, to follow-up with a yearly mammogram). Those who were deemed to be high risk for developing breast cancer were asked to come in for an appointment with the study principal investigator (a VA oncologist/breast cancer specialist) to discuss prevention options, further screening, or referrals to genetic counseling. Depending on a patient’s other health factors, a woman at high risk for developing breast cancer also may be a candidate for chemoprevention with tamoxifen, raloxifene, exemestane, anastrozole, or letrozole.

Data on the participant’s lifestyle, including exercise, diet, and smoking, were evaluated to determine whether these factors had an impact on risk status.

Results

The JJP and DC VAMCs screened 103 women veterans between 2015 and 2018. Four patients were excluded for nonveteran (spousal) status, leaving 99 women veterans with a mean age of 54 years. The most common self-reported races were Black (60%), non-Hispanic White (14%), and Hispanic or Latino (13%) (Table 1).

Women veterans in our study were nearly 3-times more likely than the general population were to receive a high-risk Gail Score/BCRAT (35% vs 13%, respectively).50,51 Of this subset, 46% had breast biopsies, and 86% had a positive family history. Thirty-one percent of Black women in our study were high risk, while nationally, 8.2 to 13.3% of Black women aged 50 to 59 years are considered high risk.50,51 Of the Black high-risk group with a high Gail/BCRAT score, 94% had a positive family history, and 33% had a history of breast biopsy (Table 2).

Of the 35 high-risk patients 26 (74%) patients accepted consultations for chemoprevention and 5 (19%) started chemoprevention. Of this high-risk group, 13 (37%) patients were referred for genetic counseling (Table 3).44 The prevalence of PTSD was present in 31% of high-risk women and 29% of the cohort (Figure).The lifestyle questions indicated that, among all participants, 79% had an overweight or obese body mass index; 58% exercised weekly; 51% consumed alcohol; 14% were smokers; and 21% consumed 3 to 4 servings of fruits/vegetables daily.

 

 

Discussion

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women.52 The number of women with breast cancer in the VHA has more than tripled from 1995 to 2012.1 The lifetime risk of developing breast cancer in the general population is about 13%.50 This rate can be affected by risk factors including age, hormone exposure, family history, radiation exposure, and lifestyle factors, such as weight and alcohol use.6,52-56 In the United States, invasive breast cancer affects 1 in 8 women.50,52,57

Our screened population showed nearly 3 times as many women veterans were at an increased risk for breast cancer when compared with historical averages in US women. This difference may be based on a high rate of prior breast biopsies or positive family history, although a provocative study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database showed military women to have higher rates of breast cancer as well.9 Historically, Blacks are vastly understudied in clinical research with only 5% representation on a national level.5,58 The urban locations of both pilot sites (Washington, DC and Bronx, NY) allowed for the inclusion of minority patients in our study. We found that the rates of breast cancer in Black women veterans to be higher than seen nationally, possibly prompting further screening initiatives for this understudied population.

Our pilot study’s chemoprevention utilization (19%) was double the < 10% seen in the national population.33-35 The presence of a knowledgeable breast health practitioner to recruit study participants and offer personalized counseling to women veterans is a likely factor in overcoming barriers to chemopreventive acceptance. These participants may have been motivated to seek care for their high-risk status given a strong family history and prior breast biopsies.

Interestingly, a 3-fold higher PTSD rate was seen in this pilot population (29%) when compared with PTSD rates in the general female population (7-10%) and still one-third higher than the general population of women veterans (20%).45-47 Mental health, anxiety, and PTSD have been barriers to patients who sought treatment and have been implicated in poor adherence to medical advice.48,49 Cancer screening can induce anxiety in patients, and it may be amplified in patients with PTSD. It was remarkable that although adherence with screening recommendations is decreased when PTSD is present, our patient population demonstrated a higher rate of screening adherence.

Women who are seen at the VA often use multiple clinical specialties, and their EMR can be accessed across VA medical centers nationwide. Therefore, identifying women veterans who meet screening criteria is easily attainable within the VA.

When comparing high-risk with average risk women, the lifestyle results (BMI, smoking history, exercise and consumption of fruits, vegetables and alcohol) were essentially the same. Lifestyle factors were similar to national population rates and were unlikely to impact risk levels.

Limitations

Study limitations included a high number of self-referrals and the large percentage of patients with a family history of breast cancer, making them more likely to seek screening. The higher-than-average risk of breast cancer may be driven by a high rate of breast biopsies and a strong family history. Lifestyle metrics could not be accurately compared to other national assessments of lifestyle factors due to the difference in data points that we used or the format of our questions.

 

 

Conclusions

As the number of women veterans increases and the incidence of breast cancer in women veterans rise, chemoprevention options should follow national guidelines. To our knowledge, this is the only oncology study with 60% Black women veterans. This study had a higher participation rate for Black women veterans than is typically seen in national research studies and shows the VA to be a germane source for further understanding of an understudied population that may benefit from increased screening for breast cancer.

A team-based, multidisciplinary model that meets the unique healthcare needs of women veterans results in a patient-centric delivery of care for assessing breast cancer risk status and prevention options. This model can be replicated nationally by directing primary care physicians and women’s health practitioners to a risk-assessment questionnaire and referring high-risk women for appropriate preventative care. Given that these results show chemoprevention adherence rates doubled those seen nationally, perhaps techniques used within this VA pilot study may be adapted to decrease breast cancer incidence nationally.

Since the rate of PTSD among women veterans is triple the national average, we would expect adherence rates to be lower in our patient cohort. However, the multidisciplinary approach we used in this study (eg, 1:1 consultation with oncologist; genetic counseling referrals; mental health support available), may have improved adherence rates. Perhaps the high rates of PTSD seen in the VA patient population can be a useful way to explore patient adherence rates in those with mental illness and medical conditions.

Future research with a larger cohort may lead to greater insight into the correlation between PTSD and adherence to treatment. Exploring the connection between breast cancer, epigenetics, and specific military service-related exposures could be an area of analysis among this veteran population exhibiting increased breast cancer rates. VAMCs are situated in rural, suburban, and urban locations across the United States and offers a diverse socioeconomic and ethnic patient population for inclusion in clinical investigations. Women veterans make up a small subpopulation of women in the United States, but it is worth considering VA patients as an untapped resource for research collaboration.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Steven Sanchez and Marissa Vallette, PhD, Breast Health Research Group. This research project was approved by the James J. Peters VA Medical Center Quality Executive Committee and the Washington, DC VA Medical Center Institutional Review Board. This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. This work did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

The number of women seeking care from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is increasing.1 In 2015, there were 2 million women veterans in the United States, which is 9.4% of the total veteran population. This group is expected to increase at an average of about 18,000 women per year for the next 10 years.2 The percentage of women veterans who are US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) users aged 45 to 64 years rose 46% from 2000 to 2015.1,3-4 It is estimated that 15% of veterans who used VA services in 2020 were women.1 Nineteen percent of women veterans are Black.1 The median age of women veterans in 2015 was 50 years.5 Breast cancer is the leading cancer affecting female veterans, and data suggest they have an increased risk of breast cancer based on unique service-related exposures.1,6-9

In the US, about 10 million women are eligible for breast cancer preventive therapy, including, but not limited to, medications, surgery, or lifestyle changes.10 Secondary prevention options include change in surveillance that can reduce their risk or identify cancer at an earlier stage when treatment is more effective. The United States Preventive Services Task Force, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the Oncology Nursing Society recommend screening women aged ≥ 35 years to assess breast cancer risk.11-18 If a woman is at increased risk, she may be a candidate for chemoprevention, prozphylactic surgery, and possibly an enhanced screening regimen.

Urban and minority women are an understudied population. Most veterans (75%) live in urban or suburban settings.19,20 Urban veteran women constitute an important potential study population.

Chemoprevention measures have been underused because of factors involving both women and their health care providers. A large proportion of women are unaware of their higher risk status due to lack of adequate screening and risk assessment.21,22 In addition to patient lack of awareness of their high-risk status, primary care physicians are also reluctant to prescribe chemopreventive agents due to a lack of comfort or familiarity with the risks and benefits.23-26 The STAR2015, BCPT2005, IBIS2014, MAP3 2011, IBIS-I 2014, and IBIS II 2014 studies clearly demonstrate a 49 to 62% reduction in risk for women using chemoprevention such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or aromatase inhibitors, respectively.27-32 Yet only 4 to 9% of high-risk women not enrolled in a clinical trial are using chemoprevention.33-39

The possibility of developing breast cancer also may be increased because of a positive family history or being a member of a family in which there is a known susceptibility gene mutation.40 Based on these risk factors, women may be eligible for tailored follow-up and genetic counseling.41-44

Nationally, 7 to 10% of the civilian US population will experience posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).45 The rates are remarkably higher for women veterans, with roughly 20% diagnosed with PTSD.46,47 Anxiety and PTSD have been implicated in poor adherence to medical advice.48,49

In 2014, a national VA multidisciplinary group focused on breast cancer prevention, detection, treatment, and research to address breast health in the growing population of women veterans. High-risk breast cancer screenings are not routinely carried out by the VA in primary care, women’s health, or oncology services. Furthermore, the recording of screening questionnaire results was not synchronized until a standard questionnaire was created and approved as a template by this group in the VA electronic medical record (EMR) in 2015.

Several prediction models can identify which women are at an increased risk of developing breast cancer. The most commonly used risk assessment model, the Gail breast cancer risk assessment tool (BCRAT), has been refined to include women of additional ethnicities (https://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool).

This pilot project was launched to identify an effective manner to screen women veterans regarding their risk of developing breast cancer and refer them for chemoprevention education or genetic counseling as appropriate.

 

 

Methods

A high-risk breast cancer screening questionnaire based on the Gail BCRAT and including lifestyle questions was developed and included as a note template in the VA EMR. The James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, NY (JJPVAMC) and the Washington DC VA Medical Center (DCVAMC) ran a pilot study between 2015 and 2018 using this breast cancer screening questionnaire to collect data from women veterans. Quality Executive Committee and institutional review board approvals were granted respectively.

Eligibility criteria included women aged ≥ 35 years with no personal history of breast cancer. Most patients were self-referred, but participants also were recruited during VA Breast Cancer Awareness month events, health fairs, or at informational tables in the hospital lobbies. After completing the 20 multiple choice questionnaire with a study team member, either in person or over the phone, a 5-year and lifetime risk of invasive breast cancer was calculated using the Gail BCRAT. A woman is considered high risk and eligible for chemoprevention if her 5-year risk is > 1.66% or her lifetime risk is ≥ 20%. Eligibility for genetic counseling is based on the Breast Cancer Referral Screening Tool, which includes a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer and Jewish ancestry.

All patients were notified of their average or high risk status by a clinician. Those who were deemed to be average risk received a follow-up letter in the mail with instructions (eg, to follow-up with a yearly mammogram). Those who were deemed to be high risk for developing breast cancer were asked to come in for an appointment with the study principal investigator (a VA oncologist/breast cancer specialist) to discuss prevention options, further screening, or referrals to genetic counseling. Depending on a patient’s other health factors, a woman at high risk for developing breast cancer also may be a candidate for chemoprevention with tamoxifen, raloxifene, exemestane, anastrozole, or letrozole.

Data on the participant’s lifestyle, including exercise, diet, and smoking, were evaluated to determine whether these factors had an impact on risk status.

Results

The JJP and DC VAMCs screened 103 women veterans between 2015 and 2018. Four patients were excluded for nonveteran (spousal) status, leaving 99 women veterans with a mean age of 54 years. The most common self-reported races were Black (60%), non-Hispanic White (14%), and Hispanic or Latino (13%) (Table 1).

Women veterans in our study were nearly 3-times more likely than the general population were to receive a high-risk Gail Score/BCRAT (35% vs 13%, respectively).50,51 Of this subset, 46% had breast biopsies, and 86% had a positive family history. Thirty-one percent of Black women in our study were high risk, while nationally, 8.2 to 13.3% of Black women aged 50 to 59 years are considered high risk.50,51 Of the Black high-risk group with a high Gail/BCRAT score, 94% had a positive family history, and 33% had a history of breast biopsy (Table 2).

Of the 35 high-risk patients 26 (74%) patients accepted consultations for chemoprevention and 5 (19%) started chemoprevention. Of this high-risk group, 13 (37%) patients were referred for genetic counseling (Table 3).44 The prevalence of PTSD was present in 31% of high-risk women and 29% of the cohort (Figure).The lifestyle questions indicated that, among all participants, 79% had an overweight or obese body mass index; 58% exercised weekly; 51% consumed alcohol; 14% were smokers; and 21% consumed 3 to 4 servings of fruits/vegetables daily.

 

 

Discussion

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women.52 The number of women with breast cancer in the VHA has more than tripled from 1995 to 2012.1 The lifetime risk of developing breast cancer in the general population is about 13%.50 This rate can be affected by risk factors including age, hormone exposure, family history, radiation exposure, and lifestyle factors, such as weight and alcohol use.6,52-56 In the United States, invasive breast cancer affects 1 in 8 women.50,52,57

Our screened population showed nearly 3 times as many women veterans were at an increased risk for breast cancer when compared with historical averages in US women. This difference may be based on a high rate of prior breast biopsies or positive family history, although a provocative study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database showed military women to have higher rates of breast cancer as well.9 Historically, Blacks are vastly understudied in clinical research with only 5% representation on a national level.5,58 The urban locations of both pilot sites (Washington, DC and Bronx, NY) allowed for the inclusion of minority patients in our study. We found that the rates of breast cancer in Black women veterans to be higher than seen nationally, possibly prompting further screening initiatives for this understudied population.

Our pilot study’s chemoprevention utilization (19%) was double the < 10% seen in the national population.33-35 The presence of a knowledgeable breast health practitioner to recruit study participants and offer personalized counseling to women veterans is a likely factor in overcoming barriers to chemopreventive acceptance. These participants may have been motivated to seek care for their high-risk status given a strong family history and prior breast biopsies.

Interestingly, a 3-fold higher PTSD rate was seen in this pilot population (29%) when compared with PTSD rates in the general female population (7-10%) and still one-third higher than the general population of women veterans (20%).45-47 Mental health, anxiety, and PTSD have been barriers to patients who sought treatment and have been implicated in poor adherence to medical advice.48,49 Cancer screening can induce anxiety in patients, and it may be amplified in patients with PTSD. It was remarkable that although adherence with screening recommendations is decreased when PTSD is present, our patient population demonstrated a higher rate of screening adherence.

Women who are seen at the VA often use multiple clinical specialties, and their EMR can be accessed across VA medical centers nationwide. Therefore, identifying women veterans who meet screening criteria is easily attainable within the VA.

When comparing high-risk with average risk women, the lifestyle results (BMI, smoking history, exercise and consumption of fruits, vegetables and alcohol) were essentially the same. Lifestyle factors were similar to national population rates and were unlikely to impact risk levels.

Limitations

Study limitations included a high number of self-referrals and the large percentage of patients with a family history of breast cancer, making them more likely to seek screening. The higher-than-average risk of breast cancer may be driven by a high rate of breast biopsies and a strong family history. Lifestyle metrics could not be accurately compared to other national assessments of lifestyle factors due to the difference in data points that we used or the format of our questions.

 

 

Conclusions

As the number of women veterans increases and the incidence of breast cancer in women veterans rise, chemoprevention options should follow national guidelines. To our knowledge, this is the only oncology study with 60% Black women veterans. This study had a higher participation rate for Black women veterans than is typically seen in national research studies and shows the VA to be a germane source for further understanding of an understudied population that may benefit from increased screening for breast cancer.

A team-based, multidisciplinary model that meets the unique healthcare needs of women veterans results in a patient-centric delivery of care for assessing breast cancer risk status and prevention options. This model can be replicated nationally by directing primary care physicians and women’s health practitioners to a risk-assessment questionnaire and referring high-risk women for appropriate preventative care. Given that these results show chemoprevention adherence rates doubled those seen nationally, perhaps techniques used within this VA pilot study may be adapted to decrease breast cancer incidence nationally.

Since the rate of PTSD among women veterans is triple the national average, we would expect adherence rates to be lower in our patient cohort. However, the multidisciplinary approach we used in this study (eg, 1:1 consultation with oncologist; genetic counseling referrals; mental health support available), may have improved adherence rates. Perhaps the high rates of PTSD seen in the VA patient population can be a useful way to explore patient adherence rates in those with mental illness and medical conditions.

Future research with a larger cohort may lead to greater insight into the correlation between PTSD and adherence to treatment. Exploring the connection between breast cancer, epigenetics, and specific military service-related exposures could be an area of analysis among this veteran population exhibiting increased breast cancer rates. VAMCs are situated in rural, suburban, and urban locations across the United States and offers a diverse socioeconomic and ethnic patient population for inclusion in clinical investigations. Women veterans make up a small subpopulation of women in the United States, but it is worth considering VA patients as an untapped resource for research collaboration.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Steven Sanchez and Marissa Vallette, PhD, Breast Health Research Group. This research project was approved by the James J. Peters VA Medical Center Quality Executive Committee and the Washington, DC VA Medical Center Institutional Review Board. This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. This work did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

References

1. US Department of Veterans Affairs. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics. The past, present and future of women veterans. Published February 2017. Accessed April 28, 2021. https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/specialreports/women_veterans_2015_final.pdf.

2. Frayne SM, Carney DV, Bastian L, et al. The VA Women’s Health Practice-Based Research Network: amplifying women veterans’ voices in VA research. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S504-S509. doi:10.1007/s11606-013-2476-3

3. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Women’s Health Evaluation Initiative, Women Veterans Health Strategic Health Care Group. Sourcebook: women veterans in the Veterans Health Administration. Volume 1: Sociodemographic characteristics and use of VHA care. Published December 2010. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=2455

4. Bean-Mayberry B, Yano EM, Bayliss N, Navratil J, Weisman CS, Scholle SH. Federally funded comprehensive women’s health centers: leading innovation in women’s healthcare delivery. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16(9):1281-1290. doi:10.1089/jwh.2006.0284

5. US Department of Veterans Affairs. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics.VA utilization profile FY 2016. Published November 2017. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/QuickFacts/VA_Utilization_Profile.PDF

6. Ekenga CC, Parks CG, Sandler DP. Chemical exposures in the workplace and breast cancer risk: a prospective cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2015;137(7):1765-1774. doi:10.1002/ijc.29545

7. Rennix CP, Quinn MM, Amoroso PJ, Eisen EA, Wegman DH. Risk of breast cancer among enlisted Army women occupationally exposed to volatile organic compounds. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(3):157-167. doi:10.1002/ajim.20201

8. Ritz B. Cancer mortality among workers exposed to chemicals during uranium processing. J Occup Environ Med. 1999;41(7):556-566. doi:10.1097/00043764-199907000-00004

9. Zhu K, Devesa SS, Wu H, et al. Cancer incidence in the U.S. military population: comparison with rates from the SEER program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(6):1740-1745. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0041

10. Freedman AN, Yu B, Gail MH, et al. Benefit/risk assessment for breast cancer chemoprevention with raloxifene or tamoxifen for women age 50 years or older [published correction appears in J Clin Oncol. 2013 Nov 10;31(32):4167]. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(17):2327-2333. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.33.0258

11. Greene, H. Cancer prevention, screening and early detection. In: Gobel BH, Triest-Robertson S, Vogel WH, eds. Advanced Oncology Nursing Certification Review and Resource Manual. 3rd ed. Oncology Nursing Society; 2016:1-34. https://www.ons.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/2%20ADVPrac%20chapter%201.pdf

12. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Breast Cancer Risk Reduction. Version 1.2021 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Updated March 24, 2021 Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast_risk.pdf

13. US Preventive Services Task Force. Breast cancer: Medications use to reduce risk. Updated September 3, 2019. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/breast-cancer-medications-for-risk-reduction

14. Moyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Medications to decrease the risk for breast cancer in women: recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(10):698-708. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-10-201311190-00717

15. Boucher JE. Chemoprevention: an overview of pharmacologic agents and nursing considerations. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2018;22(3):350-353. doi:10.1188/18.CJON.350-353

16. Nichols HB, Stürmer T, Lee VS, et al. Breast cancer chemoprevention in an integrated health care setting. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2017;1:1-12. doi:10.1200/CCI.16.00059

17. Bevers TB, Helvie M, Bonaccio E, et al. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16(11):1362-1389. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2018.0083

18. Visvanathan K, Hurley P, Bantug E, et al. Use of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline [published correction appears in J Clin Oncol. 2013 Dec 1;31(34):4383]. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(23):2942-2962. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.49.3122

19. Sealy-Jefferson S, Roseland ME, Cote ML, et al. rural-urban residence and stage at breast cancer diagnosis among postmenopausal women: The Women’s Health Initiative. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019;28(2):276-283. doi:10.1089/jwh.2017.6884

20. Holder KA. Veterans in rural America: 2011-2015. Published January 25, 2017. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/acs/acs-36.html

21. Owens WL, Gallagher TJ, Kincheloe MJ, Ruetten VL. Implementation in a large health system of a program to identify women at high risk for breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(2):85-88. doi:10.1200/JOP.2010.000107

2. Pivot X, Viguier J, Touboul C, et al. Breast cancer screening controversy: too much or not enough?. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2015;24 Suppl:S73-S76. doi:10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000145

23. Bidassie B, Kovach A, Vallette MA, et al. Breast Cancer risk assessment and chemoprevention use among veterans affairs primary care providers: a national online survey. Mil Med. 2020;185(3-4):512-518. doi:10.1093/milmed/usz291

24. Brewster AM, Davidson NE, McCaskill-Stevens W. Chemoprevention for breast cancer: overcoming barriers to treatment. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2012;85-90. doi:10.14694/EdBook_AM.2012.32.152

25. Meyskens FL Jr, Curt GA, Brenner DE, et al. Regulatory approval of cancer risk-reducing (chemopreventive) drugs: moving what we have learned into the clinic. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4(3):311-323. doi:10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-09-0014

26. Tice JA, Kerlikowske K. Screening and prevention of breast cancer in primary care. Prim Care. 2009;36(3):533-558. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2009.04.003

27. Vogel VG. Selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer chemoprevention. Curr Drug Targets. 2011;12(13):1874-1887. doi:10.2174/138945011798184164

28. Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial [published correction appears in JAMA. 2006 Dec 27;296(24):2926] [published correction appears in JAMA. 2007 Sep 5;298(9):973]. JAMA. 2006;295(23):2727-2741. doi:10.1001/jama.295.23.joc60074

29. Pruthi S, Heisey RE, Bevers TB. Chemoprevention for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3230-3235. doi:10.1245/s10434-015-4715-9

30. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Forbes JF, et al. Anastrozole for prevention of breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women (IBIS-II): an international, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial [published correction appears in Lancet. 2014 Mar 22;383(9922):1040] [published correction appears in Lancet. 2017 Mar 11;389(10073):1010]. Lancet. 2014;383(9922):1041-1048. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62292-8

31. Bozovic-Spasojevic I, Azambuja E, McCaskill-Stevens W, Dinh P, Cardoso F. Chemoprevention for breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2012;38(5):329-339. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.07.005

32. Gabriel EM, Jatoi I. Breast cancer chemoprevention. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2012;12(2):223-228. doi:10.1586/era.11.206

<--pagebreak-->

33. Crew KD, Albain KS, Hershman DL, Unger JM, Lo SS. How do we increase uptake of tamoxifen and other anti-estrogens for breast cancer prevention?. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2017;3:20. Published 2017 May 19. doi:10.1038/s41523-017-0021-y

34. Ropka ME, Keim J, Philbrick JT. Patient decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(18):3090-3095. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.27.8077

35. Smith SG, Sestak I, Forster A, et al. Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(4):575-590. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv590

36. Grann VR, Patel PR, Jacobson JS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2-affected mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Feb;125(3):837-847. doi:10.1007/s10549-010-1043-4

37. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Alés-Martínez JE, et al. Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct 6;365(14):1361]. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(25):2381-2391. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1103507

38. Kmietowicz Z. Five in six women reject drugs that could reduce their risk of breast cancer. BMJ. 2015;351:h6650. Published 2015 Dec 8. doi:10.1136/bmj.h6650

39. Nelson HD, Fu R, Griffin JC, Nygren P, Smith ME, Humphrey L. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of medications to reduce risk for primary breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):703-235. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00147

40. Dahabreh IJ, Wieland LS, Adam GP, Halladay C, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Core needle and open surgery biopsy for diagnosis of breast lesions: an update to the 2009 report. Published September 2014. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK246878

41. National Cancer Institute. Genetics of breast and ovarian cancer (PDQ)—health profession version. Updated February 12, 2021. Accessed April 12, 2021. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/genetics/breast-and-ovarian/HealthProfessional

42. US Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences The sister study. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://sisterstudy.niehs.nih.gov/english/NIEHS.htm

43. Tutt A, Ashworth A. Can genetic testing guide treatment in breast cancer?. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(18):2774-2780. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.009

44. Katz SJ, Ward KC, Hamilton AS, et al. Gaps in receipt of clinically indicated genetic counseling after diagnosis of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(12):1218-1224. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.76.2369

45. US Department of Veterans Affairs. PTSD: National Center for PTSD. How common is PTSD in adults? Updated October 17, 2019. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/common/common_adults.asp

46. US Department of Veterans Affairs. PTSD: National Center for PTSD. How common is PTSD in women? Updated October 16, 2019. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/common/common_women.asp

47. US Department of Veterans Affairs. PTSD: National Center for PTSD. How common is PTSD in veterans? Updated September 24, 2018. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/common/common_veterans.asp

48. Lindberg NM, Wellisch D. Anxiety and compliance among women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Behav Med. 2001;23(4):298-303. doi:10.1207/S15324796ABM2304_9

49. DiMatteo MR, Lepper HS, Croghan TW. Depression is a risk factor for noncompliance with medical treatment: meta-analysis of the effects of anxiety and depression on patient adherence. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(14):2101-2107. doi:10.1001/archinte.160.14.2101

50. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR appendix: breast cancer rates among black women and white women. Updated October 13, 2016. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/trends_invasive.htm

51. Richardson LC, Henley SJ, Miller JW, Massetti G, Thomas CC. Patterns and trends in age-specific black-white differences in breast cancer incidence and mortality - United States, 1999-2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(40):1093-1098. Published 2016 Oct 14. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6540a1

52. Brody JG, Moysich KB, Humblet O, Attfield KR, Beehler GP, Rudel RA. Environmental pollutants and breast cancer: epidemiologic studies. Cancer. 2007;109(12 Suppl):2667-2711. doi:10.1002/cncr.22655

53. Brophy JT, Keith MM, Watterson A, et al. Breast cancer risk in relation to occupations with exposure to carcinogens and endocrine disruptors: a Canadian case-control study. Environ Health. 2012;11:87. Published 2012 Nov 19. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-11-87

54. Labrèche F, Goldberg MS, Valois MF, Nadon L. Postmenopausal breast cancer and occupational exposures. Occup Environ Med. 2010;67(4):263-269. doi:10.1136/oem.2009.049817

55. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Interagency Breast Cancer & Environmental Research Coordinating Committee. Breast cancer and the environment: prioritizing prevention. Updated March 8, 2013. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/boards/ibcercc/index.cfm

56. Gail MH, Costantino JP, Pee D, et al. Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women [published correction appears in J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Aug 6;100(15):1118] [published correction appears in J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Mar 5;100(5):373]. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(23):1782-1792. doi:10.1093/jnci/djm223

57. Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, Williams MV, Moody-Ayers S. Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14(9):537-546. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.07048.x

58. Braunstein JB, Sherber NS, Schulman SP, Ding EL, Powe NR. Race, medical researcher distrust, perceived harm, and willingness to participate in cardiovascular prevention trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2008;87(1):1-9. doi:10.1097/MD.0b013e3181625d78

References

1. US Department of Veterans Affairs. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics. The past, present and future of women veterans. Published February 2017. Accessed April 28, 2021. https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/specialreports/women_veterans_2015_final.pdf.

2. Frayne SM, Carney DV, Bastian L, et al. The VA Women’s Health Practice-Based Research Network: amplifying women veterans’ voices in VA research. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S504-S509. doi:10.1007/s11606-013-2476-3

3. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Women’s Health Evaluation Initiative, Women Veterans Health Strategic Health Care Group. Sourcebook: women veterans in the Veterans Health Administration. Volume 1: Sociodemographic characteristics and use of VHA care. Published December 2010. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=2455

4. Bean-Mayberry B, Yano EM, Bayliss N, Navratil J, Weisman CS, Scholle SH. Federally funded comprehensive women’s health centers: leading innovation in women’s healthcare delivery. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16(9):1281-1290. doi:10.1089/jwh.2006.0284

5. US Department of Veterans Affairs. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics.VA utilization profile FY 2016. Published November 2017. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/QuickFacts/VA_Utilization_Profile.PDF

6. Ekenga CC, Parks CG, Sandler DP. Chemical exposures in the workplace and breast cancer risk: a prospective cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2015;137(7):1765-1774. doi:10.1002/ijc.29545

7. Rennix CP, Quinn MM, Amoroso PJ, Eisen EA, Wegman DH. Risk of breast cancer among enlisted Army women occupationally exposed to volatile organic compounds. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(3):157-167. doi:10.1002/ajim.20201

8. Ritz B. Cancer mortality among workers exposed to chemicals during uranium processing. J Occup Environ Med. 1999;41(7):556-566. doi:10.1097/00043764-199907000-00004

9. Zhu K, Devesa SS, Wu H, et al. Cancer incidence in the U.S. military population: comparison with rates from the SEER program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(6):1740-1745. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0041

10. Freedman AN, Yu B, Gail MH, et al. Benefit/risk assessment for breast cancer chemoprevention with raloxifene or tamoxifen for women age 50 years or older [published correction appears in J Clin Oncol. 2013 Nov 10;31(32):4167]. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(17):2327-2333. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.33.0258

11. Greene, H. Cancer prevention, screening and early detection. In: Gobel BH, Triest-Robertson S, Vogel WH, eds. Advanced Oncology Nursing Certification Review and Resource Manual. 3rd ed. Oncology Nursing Society; 2016:1-34. https://www.ons.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/2%20ADVPrac%20chapter%201.pdf

12. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Breast Cancer Risk Reduction. Version 1.2021 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Updated March 24, 2021 Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast_risk.pdf

13. US Preventive Services Task Force. Breast cancer: Medications use to reduce risk. Updated September 3, 2019. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/breast-cancer-medications-for-risk-reduction

14. Moyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Medications to decrease the risk for breast cancer in women: recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(10):698-708. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-10-201311190-00717

15. Boucher JE. Chemoprevention: an overview of pharmacologic agents and nursing considerations. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2018;22(3):350-353. doi:10.1188/18.CJON.350-353

16. Nichols HB, Stürmer T, Lee VS, et al. Breast cancer chemoprevention in an integrated health care setting. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2017;1:1-12. doi:10.1200/CCI.16.00059

17. Bevers TB, Helvie M, Bonaccio E, et al. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16(11):1362-1389. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2018.0083

18. Visvanathan K, Hurley P, Bantug E, et al. Use of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline [published correction appears in J Clin Oncol. 2013 Dec 1;31(34):4383]. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(23):2942-2962. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.49.3122

19. Sealy-Jefferson S, Roseland ME, Cote ML, et al. rural-urban residence and stage at breast cancer diagnosis among postmenopausal women: The Women’s Health Initiative. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019;28(2):276-283. doi:10.1089/jwh.2017.6884

20. Holder KA. Veterans in rural America: 2011-2015. Published January 25, 2017. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/acs/acs-36.html

21. Owens WL, Gallagher TJ, Kincheloe MJ, Ruetten VL. Implementation in a large health system of a program to identify women at high risk for breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(2):85-88. doi:10.1200/JOP.2010.000107

2. Pivot X, Viguier J, Touboul C, et al. Breast cancer screening controversy: too much or not enough?. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2015;24 Suppl:S73-S76. doi:10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000145

23. Bidassie B, Kovach A, Vallette MA, et al. Breast Cancer risk assessment and chemoprevention use among veterans affairs primary care providers: a national online survey. Mil Med. 2020;185(3-4):512-518. doi:10.1093/milmed/usz291

24. Brewster AM, Davidson NE, McCaskill-Stevens W. Chemoprevention for breast cancer: overcoming barriers to treatment. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2012;85-90. doi:10.14694/EdBook_AM.2012.32.152

25. Meyskens FL Jr, Curt GA, Brenner DE, et al. Regulatory approval of cancer risk-reducing (chemopreventive) drugs: moving what we have learned into the clinic. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4(3):311-323. doi:10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-09-0014

26. Tice JA, Kerlikowske K. Screening and prevention of breast cancer in primary care. Prim Care. 2009;36(3):533-558. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2009.04.003

27. Vogel VG. Selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer chemoprevention. Curr Drug Targets. 2011;12(13):1874-1887. doi:10.2174/138945011798184164

28. Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial [published correction appears in JAMA. 2006 Dec 27;296(24):2926] [published correction appears in JAMA. 2007 Sep 5;298(9):973]. JAMA. 2006;295(23):2727-2741. doi:10.1001/jama.295.23.joc60074

29. Pruthi S, Heisey RE, Bevers TB. Chemoprevention for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3230-3235. doi:10.1245/s10434-015-4715-9

30. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Forbes JF, et al. Anastrozole for prevention of breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women (IBIS-II): an international, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial [published correction appears in Lancet. 2014 Mar 22;383(9922):1040] [published correction appears in Lancet. 2017 Mar 11;389(10073):1010]. Lancet. 2014;383(9922):1041-1048. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62292-8

31. Bozovic-Spasojevic I, Azambuja E, McCaskill-Stevens W, Dinh P, Cardoso F. Chemoprevention for breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2012;38(5):329-339. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.07.005

32. Gabriel EM, Jatoi I. Breast cancer chemoprevention. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2012;12(2):223-228. doi:10.1586/era.11.206

<--pagebreak-->

33. Crew KD, Albain KS, Hershman DL, Unger JM, Lo SS. How do we increase uptake of tamoxifen and other anti-estrogens for breast cancer prevention?. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2017;3:20. Published 2017 May 19. doi:10.1038/s41523-017-0021-y

34. Ropka ME, Keim J, Philbrick JT. Patient decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(18):3090-3095. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.27.8077

35. Smith SG, Sestak I, Forster A, et al. Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(4):575-590. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv590

36. Grann VR, Patel PR, Jacobson JS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2-affected mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Feb;125(3):837-847. doi:10.1007/s10549-010-1043-4

37. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Alés-Martínez JE, et al. Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct 6;365(14):1361]. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(25):2381-2391. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1103507

38. Kmietowicz Z. Five in six women reject drugs that could reduce their risk of breast cancer. BMJ. 2015;351:h6650. Published 2015 Dec 8. doi:10.1136/bmj.h6650

39. Nelson HD, Fu R, Griffin JC, Nygren P, Smith ME, Humphrey L. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of medications to reduce risk for primary breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):703-235. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00147

40. Dahabreh IJ, Wieland LS, Adam GP, Halladay C, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Core needle and open surgery biopsy for diagnosis of breast lesions: an update to the 2009 report. Published September 2014. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK246878

41. National Cancer Institute. Genetics of breast and ovarian cancer (PDQ)—health profession version. Updated February 12, 2021. Accessed April 12, 2021. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/genetics/breast-and-ovarian/HealthProfessional

42. US Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences The sister study. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://sisterstudy.niehs.nih.gov/english/NIEHS.htm

43. Tutt A, Ashworth A. Can genetic testing guide treatment in breast cancer?. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(18):2774-2780. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.009

44. Katz SJ, Ward KC, Hamilton AS, et al. Gaps in receipt of clinically indicated genetic counseling after diagnosis of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(12):1218-1224. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.76.2369

45. US Department of Veterans Affairs. PTSD: National Center for PTSD. How common is PTSD in adults? Updated October 17, 2019. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/common/common_adults.asp

46. US Department of Veterans Affairs. PTSD: National Center for PTSD. How common is PTSD in women? Updated October 16, 2019. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/common/common_women.asp

47. US Department of Veterans Affairs. PTSD: National Center for PTSD. How common is PTSD in veterans? Updated September 24, 2018. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/common/common_veterans.asp

48. Lindberg NM, Wellisch D. Anxiety and compliance among women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Behav Med. 2001;23(4):298-303. doi:10.1207/S15324796ABM2304_9

49. DiMatteo MR, Lepper HS, Croghan TW. Depression is a risk factor for noncompliance with medical treatment: meta-analysis of the effects of anxiety and depression on patient adherence. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(14):2101-2107. doi:10.1001/archinte.160.14.2101

50. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR appendix: breast cancer rates among black women and white women. Updated October 13, 2016. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/trends_invasive.htm

51. Richardson LC, Henley SJ, Miller JW, Massetti G, Thomas CC. Patterns and trends in age-specific black-white differences in breast cancer incidence and mortality - United States, 1999-2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(40):1093-1098. Published 2016 Oct 14. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6540a1

52. Brody JG, Moysich KB, Humblet O, Attfield KR, Beehler GP, Rudel RA. Environmental pollutants and breast cancer: epidemiologic studies. Cancer. 2007;109(12 Suppl):2667-2711. doi:10.1002/cncr.22655

53. Brophy JT, Keith MM, Watterson A, et al. Breast cancer risk in relation to occupations with exposure to carcinogens and endocrine disruptors: a Canadian case-control study. Environ Health. 2012;11:87. Published 2012 Nov 19. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-11-87

54. Labrèche F, Goldberg MS, Valois MF, Nadon L. Postmenopausal breast cancer and occupational exposures. Occup Environ Med. 2010;67(4):263-269. doi:10.1136/oem.2009.049817

55. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Interagency Breast Cancer & Environmental Research Coordinating Committee. Breast cancer and the environment: prioritizing prevention. Updated March 8, 2013. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/boards/ibcercc/index.cfm

56. Gail MH, Costantino JP, Pee D, et al. Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women [published correction appears in J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Aug 6;100(15):1118] [published correction appears in J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Mar 5;100(5):373]. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(23):1782-1792. doi:10.1093/jnci/djm223

57. Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, Williams MV, Moody-Ayers S. Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14(9):537-546. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.07048.x

58. Braunstein JB, Sherber NS, Schulman SP, Ding EL, Powe NR. Race, medical researcher distrust, perceived harm, and willingness to participate in cardiovascular prevention trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2008;87(1):1-9. doi:10.1097/MD.0b013e3181625d78

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 38(2)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 38(2)s
Page Number
S35-S41
Page Number
S35-S41
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Genomic Medicine and Genetic Counseling in the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense (FULL)

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/15/2022 - 17:42
Display Headline
Genomic Medicine and Genetic Counseling in the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense

Vickie Venne, MS. What is the Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)?

Renee Rider, JD, MS, LCGC. GMS is a telehealth service. We are part of central office and field stationed at the George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Salt Lake City, Utah. We provide care to about 90 VAMCs and their associated clinics. Veterans are referred to us by entering an interfacility consult in the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). We review the consult to determine whether the patient needs to be seen, whether we can answer with an e-consult, or whether we need more information. For the patients who need an appointment, the telehealth department at the veteran’s VA facility will contact the patient to arrange a visit with us. At the time of the appointment, the facility has a staff member available to seat the patient and connect them to us using video equipment.

We provide genetic care for all specialties, including cancer, women’s health, cardiology and neurology. In today’s discussion, we are focusing on cancer care.

Vickie Venne. What do patients do at facilities that don’t get care through GMS?

Renee Rider. There are a handful of facilities that provide their own genetic care in-house. For example, VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts and the Michael E. DeBakey VAMC in Houston, Texas each have their own programs. For veterans who are not at a VA facility that has an agreement with GMS and do not have a different genetics program, their providers need to make referrals to community care.

Vickie Venne. How do patients get referred and what happens at their facility when the patients return to the specialty and primary care providers (PCP)? Ishta, who do you refer to GMS and how do you define them initially?

Ishta Thakar, MD, FACP. Referrals can come at a couple of points during a veteran’s journey at the VA. The VA covers obstetrics care for women veterans. Whenever a PCP or a women’s health provider is doing the initial history and physical on a new patient, if the female veteran has an extensive family history of breast, ovarian, colon, or endometrial cancer, then we take more history and we send a consult to GMS. The second instance would be if she tells us that she has had a personal history of breast, ovarian, or endometrial cancer and she has never had genetic testing. The third instance would be whenever we have a female veteran who is diagnosed with breast, ovarian, endometrial, or colon cancer. We would definitely talk to her about genetic counseling and send a referral to GMS. We would ask for a GMS consult for a patient with advanced maternal age, with exposure to some kind of teratogens, with an abnormal ultrasound, a family history of chromosomal disorders, or if she’s seeing an obstetrician who wants her to be tested. And finally, if a patient has a constellation of multiple cancers in the family and we don’t know what’s going on, we would also refer the patient to GMS.

Vickie Venne. That would be why GMS fields over 150 referrals every week. It is a large list. We also see veterans with personal or family histories of neurologic or cardiologic concerns as well.

Renee, as somebody who fields many of these referrals from unaffected individuals, what is the family history process?

 

 

Renee Rider. We don’t expect the referring provider to be a genetic expert. When a provider is seeing a constellation of several different cancers and he or she doesn’t know if there’s anything going on genetically or even if it’s possible, absolutely they should put in a referral to GMS. We have a triage counselor who reviews every consult that comes into our service within 24 hours.

Many cancers are due to exposures that are not concerning for a genetic etiology. We can let you know that it is not concerning, and the PCP can counsel the patient that it is very unlikely to be genetic in nature. We still give feedback even if it’s not someone who is appropriate for genetic counseling and testing. It is important to reach out to GMS even if you don’t know whether a cancer is genetic in nature.

It also is important to take your time when gathering family histories. We get a lot of patients who say, “There’s a lot of cancer in my family. I have no idea who had cancer, but I know a lot of people had cancer.” That’s not the day to put in a referral to GMS. At that point, providers should tell the patient to get as much information as they can about the family history and then reassess. It’s important for us to have accurate information. We’ve had several times where we receive a referral because the veteran says that their sister had ovarian cancer. And then when our staff calls, they later find out it was cervical cancer. That’s not a good use of the veteran’s time, and it’s not a good use of VA resources.

The other important thing about family histories is keeping the questions open-ended. Often a PCP or specialist will ask about a certain type of cancer: “Does anyone in your family have breast cancer, ovarian cancer?” Or if the veteran
is getting a colonoscopy, they ask, “Does anybody have colon cancer?” Where really, we need to be a little bit more open-ended. We prefer questions like, “Has anyone in your family
had cancer?” because that’s the question that prompts a response of, “Yes, 3 people in my family have had thyroid cancer.” That’s very important for us to know, too.

If you do get a positive response, probe a little bit more: what kind of cancer did someone have, how old were they when they had their cancer? And how are they related? Is this an aunt on your mom’s side or on your dad’s side? Those are the types of information that we need to figure out if that person needs a referral.

Vickie Venne. It’s a different story when people already have a cancer diagnosis. Which hematology or oncology patients are good referrals and why?

Lisa Arfons, MD. When patients come in with newly diagnosed cancer, breast for example, it is an emotional diagnosis and psychologicallydistressing. Oftentimes, they want to know why this happened to them. The issues surrounding
genetic testing also becomes very emotional. They want to know whether their children are at risk as well.

Genetic discussions take a long time. I rarely do that on the first visit. I always record for myself in my clinic note if something strikes me regarding the patient’s diagnosis. I quickly run through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to remind myself of what I need to go over with the patient at our next meeting. Most patients don’t need to be referred to GMS, and most patients don’t need to be tested once they’re seen.

I often save the referral discussion for after I have established a rapport with a patient, we have a treatment plan, or they already have had their first surgery. Therefore, we are not making decisions about their first surgery based on the genetic medicine results.

 

 

If I’m considering a referral, I do a deeper dive with the patient. Is the patient older or younger than 45 years? I pull up NCCN guidelines and we go through the entire checklist.

We have male breast cancer patients at the VA—probably more than the community—so we refer those patients. At the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC in Ohio, we have had some in-depth discussions about referring male breast cancer patients for genetic testing and whether it was beneficial to older patients with male breast cancer. Ultimately, we decided that it was important for our male veterans to be tested because it empowered them to have better understanding of their medical conditions that may not just have effect on them but on their offspring, and that that can be a source of psychological and emotional support.

I don’t refer most people to GMS once I go through the checklist. I appreciate the action for an e-consult within the CPRS telemedicine consult itself, as Renee noted. If it is not necessary, GMS makes it an e-consult. I try to communicate that I don’t know whether it is necessary or not so that GMS understands where I’m coming from.

Vickie Venne. In the US Department of Defense (DoD) the process is quite different. Mauricio, can you explain the clinical referral process, who is referred, and how that works from a laboratory perspective?

Maj De Castro, MD, FACMG, USAF. The VA has led the way in demonstrating how to best provide for the medical genetic needs of a large, decentralized population distributed all over the country. Over the last 5 to 10 years, the DoD has made strides in recognizing the role genetics plays in the practice of everyday medicine and redoubling efforts to meet the needs of servicemembers.

The way that it traditionally has worked in the DoD is that military treatment facilities (MTFs) that have dedicated geneticists and genetic counselors: Kessler Medical Center in Mississippi, Walter Reed National Military Medical
Center in Maryland, Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii, Madigan Army Medical Center in Washington, Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas, Naval Medical Center San Diego in California, and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in Virginia. A patient seeking genetic evaluation, counseling, or testing in those larger facilities would be referred to the genetics service by their primary care manager. Wait times vary, but it would usually be weeks, maybe months. However, the great majority of MTFs do not have dedicated genetics support. Most of the time, those patients would have to be referred to the local civilian community—there was no process for them to be seen in in the military healthcare system—with wait times that exceed 6 to 8 months in some cases. This is due to just not a military but a national shortage of genetics professionals (counselors and physicians).

Last year we started the telegenetics initiative, which is small compared to the VA—it is comprised of 2 geneticists and 1 genetic counselor—but with the full intent of growing it over time. Its purpose is to extend the resources we
had to other MTFs. Genetics professionals stationed state-side can provide care to remote facilities with limited access to local genetics support such as Cannon Air Force Base (AFB) or overseas facilities such as Spangdahlem AFB in Germany.

We recognize there are military-specific needs for the DoD regarding the genetic counseling process that have to take into account readiness, genetic discrimination, continued ability to serve and fitness for duty. For this important reason, we are seeking to expand our telegenetics initiative. The goal is to be able to provide 100% of all genetic counseling in-house, so to speak.

Currently, providers at the 4 pilot sites (Cannon AFB, Fort Bragg, Spangdahlem AFB, and Guantanamo Bay) send us referrals. We triage them and assign the patient to see a geneticist or a counselor depending on the indication.

 

 

On the laboratory side, it has been a very interesting experience. Because we provide comprehensive germline cancer testing at very little cost to the provider at any MTF, we have had high numbers of test requests over the years.
In addition to saving the DoD millions of dollars in testing, we have learned some interesting lessons in the process. For instance, we have worked closely with several different groups to better understand how to educate providers on the genetic counseling and testing process. This has allowed us to craft a thorough and inclusive consent form that addresses the needs of the DoD. We have also learned valuable lessons about population-based screening vs evidence-based testing, and lessons surrounding narrow-based testing (BRCA1 and BRCA2 only testing) vs ordering a more comprehensive panel that includes other genes supported by strong evidence (such as PALB2, CHEK2, or TP53).

For example, we have found that in a significant proportion of individuals with and without family history, there are clinically relevant variants in genes other than BRCA1 or BRCA2. And so, we have made part of our consent process,
a statement on secondary findings. If the patient consents, we will report pathogenic variants in other genes known to be associated with cancer (with strong evidence) even if the provider ordered a narrow panel such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing only. In about 1% to 4% of patients that would otherwise not meet NCCN guidelines, we’ve reported variants that were clinically actionable and changed the medical management of that patient.

We feel strongly that this is a conversation that we need to have in our field, and we realize it’s a complex issue, maybe we need to expand who gets testing. Guideline based testing is missing some patients out there that could benefit from it.

Vickie Venne. There certainly are many sides to the conversation of population-based vs evidence-based genetic testing. Genetic testing policies are changing rapidly. There are teams exploring comprehensive gene sequencing for
newborns and how that potential 1-time test can provide information will be reinterpreted as a person goes from cradle to grave. However, unlike the current DoD process, in the VA there are patients who we don’t see.

Renee Rider. I want to talk about money. When we order a genetic test, that test is paid for by the pathology department at the patient’s VAMC. Most of the pathology departments we work with are clear that they only can provide
genetic testing that is considered medically necessary. Thus, we review each test to make sure it meets established guidelines for testing. We don’t do population genetic screening as there isn’t evidence or guidelines to support offering it. We are strict about who does and does not get genetic testing, partly because we have a responsibility to pathology departments and to the taxpayers.

GMS focuses on conditions that are inherited, that is to say, we deal with germline genetics. Therefore, we discontinue referrals for somatic requests, such as when an OncotypeDX test is requested. It is my understanding that pharmacogenetic referrals may be sent to the new PHASeR initiative, which is a joint collaboration between the VA and Sanford Health and is headed by Deepak Voora, MD.

We generally don’t see patients who still are having diagnostic procedures done. For example, if a veteran has a suspicious breast mass, we recommend that the provider workup the mass before referring to GMS. Regardless of a genetic test result, a suspicious mass needs to be worked up. And, knowing if the mass is cancerous could change how we would proceed with the genetic workup. For example, if the mass were not cancerous, we may recommend that an affected relative have the first genetic evaluation. Furthermore, knowing if the patient has cancer changes how we interpret negative test results.

Another group of patients we don’t see are those who already had genetic testing done by the referring provider. It’s a VA directive that if you order a test, you’re the person who is responsible for giving the results. We agree with
this directive. If you don’t feel comfortable giving back test results, don’t order the test. Often, when a provider sends a patient to us after the test was done, we discover that the patient didn’t have appropriate pretest counseling. A test result, such as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), should never be a surprise to either the provider or the patient.

Ishta Thakar. For newly diagnosed cancers, the first call is to the patient to inform them that they have cancer. We usually bring up genetic counseling or testing, if applicable, when they are ready to accept the diagnosis and have a conversation about it. All our consults are via telehealth, so none of our patients physically come to GMS in Salt Lake City. All the consults are done virtually.

For newly diagnosed patients, we would send a consult in within a couple of weeks. For patients who had a family history, the referral would not be urgent: They can be seen within about 3 months. The turnaround times for GMS are so much better than what we have available in the community where it’s often at least 6 months, as previously noted.

 

 

Vickie Venne. Thank you. We continue to work on that. One of the interesting things that we’ve done, which is the brainchild of Renee, is shared medical appointments.

Renee Rider. We have now created 4 group appointments for people who have concerns surrounding cancer. One group is for people who don’t have cancer but have family members who have cancer who may be the best testing candidate. For example, that might be a 30-year old who tells you that her mother had breast cancer at age 45 years. Her mother is still living, but she’s never had genetic testing. We would put her in a group where we discuss the importance of talking to the family members and encouraging them to go get that first genetic evaluation in the family.

Our second group is for people who don’t have cancer themselves, but have a family history of cancer and those affected relatives have passed away. The family needs a genetic evaluation, and the veteran is the best living testing candidate.

That group is geared towards education about the test and informed consent.

The third group is for people with cancer who qualify for genetic testing. We provide all of the information that they need to make an informed decision on having (or not having) genetic testing.

The final group is for people who have family histories of known genetic mutations in cancer genes. Again, we provide them with all of the information that they need to make an informed decision regarding genetic testing.

With the shared medical appointments, we have been able to greatly increase the number of patients that we can see. Our first 3 groups all meet once a week and can have 10 or 12 veterans. Our last group meets every other week and has a maximum of 6 veterans. Wait times for our groups are generally ≤ 2 weeks. All veterans can choose to have an individual appointment if they prefer. We regularly get unsolicited feedback from veterans that they learn a lot during our groups and appreciate it.

Our group appointments have lowered the wait time for the people in the groups. And, they’ve lowered the wait time for the people who are seen individually. They’ve allowed us to address the backlog of patients waiting to see us in a more timely manner. Our wait time for individual appointment had been approaching 6 months, and it is now about 1.5 months.

We also think that being in a group normalizes the experience. Most people don’t know anyone who has had genetic testing. Now, they are in a group with others going through the same experience. In one of my groups, a male veteran talked about his breast cancer being really rare. Another male in the group volunteer that he had breast cancer, too. They both seemed to appreciate not feeling alone.

 

 

Vickie Venne. I want to move to our final piece. What do the referring providers tell the patients about a genetics referral and what should they expect?

Lisa Arfons. First and foremost, I tell the patient that it is a discussion with a genetic counselor. I make it clear that they understand that it is a discussion. They then can agree or not agree to accept genetic testing if it’s recommended.

I talk in general terms about why I think it can be important for them to have the discussion, but that we don’t have great data for decisionmaking. We understand that there are more options for preventive measures but then it ultimately will be a discussion between the PCP, the patient, and their family members about how they proceed about the preventive measures. I want them to start thinking about how the genetic test results, regardless of if they are positive, negative, or a variant that is not yet understood, can impact their offspring.

Probably I am biased, as my mom had breast cancer and she underwent genetic testing. So, I have a bit of an offspring focus as well. I already mentioned that you must discuss about whether or not it’s worth screening or doing any preventive measures on contralateral breast, or screening for things like prostate cancer at age 75 years. And so I focus more on the family members.

I try to stay in my lane. I am extremely uncomfortable when I hear about someone in our facility sending off a blood test and then asking someone else to interpret the results and discuss it with the patient. Just because it’s a blood test and it’s easy to order doesn’t mean that it is easy to know what to do with it, and it needs to be respected as such.

Ishta Thakar. Our PCPs let the patients know that GMS will contact the patient to schedule a video appointment and that if they want to bring any family members along with them, they’re welcome to. We also explain that certain cancers are genetically based and that if they have a genetic mutation, it can be passed on to their offspring. I also explain that if they have certain mutations, then we would be more vigilant in screening them for other kinds of cancers. That’s the reason that we refer that they get counseled. After counseling if they’re ready for the testing, then the counselor orders the test and does the posttest discussion with the patient.

Vickie Venne. In the VA, people are invited to attend a genetic counseling session but can certainly decline. Does the the DoD have a different approach?

Maj De Castro. I would say that the great majority of active duty patients have limited knowledge of what to expect out of a genetics appointment. One of the main things we do is educate them on their rights and protections and the potential risks associated with performing genetic testing, in particular when it comes to their continued ability to serve. Genetic testing for clinical purposes is not mandatory in the DoD, patients can certainly decline testing. Because genetic testing has the potential to alter someone’s career, it is critical we have a very thorough and comprehensive pre- and posttest counseling sessions that includes everything from career implications to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and genetic discrimination in the military, in addition to the standard of care medical information.

Scenarios in which a servicemember is negatively impacted by pursuing a genetic diagnosis are very rare. More than 90% of the time, genetic counseling and/or testing has no adverse career effect. When they do, it is out of concern for the safety and wellbeing of a servicemember. For instance, if we diagnosis a patient with a genetic form of some arrhythmogenic disorder, part of the treatment plan can be to limit that person’s level of exertion, because it could potentially lead to death. We don’t want to put someone in a situation that may trigger that.

Vickie Venne. We also have a certain number of veterans who ask us about their service disability pay and the impact of genetic testing on it. One example is veterans with prostate cancer who were exposed to Agent Orange, which has been associated with increased risk for developing prostate cancer. I have had men who have been referred for genetic evaluation ask, “Well, if I have an identifiable mutation, how will that impact my service disability?” So we discuss the carcinogenic process that may include an inherited component as well as the environmental risk factors. I think that’s a unique issue for a population we’re honored to be able to serve.

 

 

Renee Rider. When we are talking about how the population of veterans is unique, I think it is also important to acknowledge mental health. I’ve had several patients tell me that they have posttraumatic stress disorder or anxiety and the idea of getting an indeterminant test result, such as VUS, would really weigh on them.

In the community, a lot of providers order the biggest panel they can, but for these patients who are worried about getting those indeterminant test results, I’ve been able to work with them to limit the size of the panel. I order a small panel that only has genes that have implications for that veteran’s clinical management. For example, in a patient with ductal breast cancer, I remove the genes that cause lobular breast cancer. This takes a bit of knowledge and critical thinking that our VA genetic counselors have because they have experience with veterans and their needs.

As our time draws to a close, I have one final thought. This has been a heartwarming conversation today. It is really nice to hear that GMS services are appreciated. We in GMS want to partner with our referring providers. Help us help you! When you enter a referral, please let us know how we can help you. The more we understand why you are sending your veteran to GMS, the more we can help meet your needs. If there are any questions or problems, feel free to send us an email or pick up the phone and call us.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Participants

Vickie Venne, MS, was a Senior Genetic Counselor for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Genomic Medicine Services at the time this conversation was recorded.

Lisa Arfons, MD, is a Medical Oncologist at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center in Ohio where she is the Cancer Committee Chair.

Maj Mauricio De Castro, MD, FACMG, USAF, is a Clinical Geneticist and the Director of the Molecular Genetics Laboratory located at Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi, the reference germline testing laboratory for the US Department of Defense (DoD). Maj De Castro currently participates in a telegenetics initiative that sees remote patients remotely at DoD bases across the world.

Renee Rider, JD, MS, LCGC, is a Lead Genetic Counselor with the VA Genomic Medicine Service.

Ishita Thakar, MD, FACP, is the Women’s Health Medical Director and the Deputy Chief of Staff at the Oklahoma City VA Medical Center.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 36(5)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S15-S20
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Participants

Vickie Venne, MS, was a Senior Genetic Counselor for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Genomic Medicine Services at the time this conversation was recorded.

Lisa Arfons, MD, is a Medical Oncologist at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center in Ohio where she is the Cancer Committee Chair.

Maj Mauricio De Castro, MD, FACMG, USAF, is a Clinical Geneticist and the Director of the Molecular Genetics Laboratory located at Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi, the reference germline testing laboratory for the US Department of Defense (DoD). Maj De Castro currently participates in a telegenetics initiative that sees remote patients remotely at DoD bases across the world.

Renee Rider, JD, MS, LCGC, is a Lead Genetic Counselor with the VA Genomic Medicine Service.

Ishita Thakar, MD, FACP, is the Women’s Health Medical Director and the Deputy Chief of Staff at the Oklahoma City VA Medical Center.

Author and Disclosure Information

Participants

Vickie Venne, MS, was a Senior Genetic Counselor for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Genomic Medicine Services at the time this conversation was recorded.

Lisa Arfons, MD, is a Medical Oncologist at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center in Ohio where she is the Cancer Committee Chair.

Maj Mauricio De Castro, MD, FACMG, USAF, is a Clinical Geneticist and the Director of the Molecular Genetics Laboratory located at Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi, the reference germline testing laboratory for the US Department of Defense (DoD). Maj De Castro currently participates in a telegenetics initiative that sees remote patients remotely at DoD bases across the world.

Renee Rider, JD, MS, LCGC, is a Lead Genetic Counselor with the VA Genomic Medicine Service.

Ishita Thakar, MD, FACP, is the Women’s Health Medical Director and the Deputy Chief of Staff at the Oklahoma City VA Medical Center.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

Vickie Venne, MS. What is the Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)?

Renee Rider, JD, MS, LCGC. GMS is a telehealth service. We are part of central office and field stationed at the George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Salt Lake City, Utah. We provide care to about 90 VAMCs and their associated clinics. Veterans are referred to us by entering an interfacility consult in the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). We review the consult to determine whether the patient needs to be seen, whether we can answer with an e-consult, or whether we need more information. For the patients who need an appointment, the telehealth department at the veteran’s VA facility will contact the patient to arrange a visit with us. At the time of the appointment, the facility has a staff member available to seat the patient and connect them to us using video equipment.

We provide genetic care for all specialties, including cancer, women’s health, cardiology and neurology. In today’s discussion, we are focusing on cancer care.

Vickie Venne. What do patients do at facilities that don’t get care through GMS?

Renee Rider. There are a handful of facilities that provide their own genetic care in-house. For example, VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts and the Michael E. DeBakey VAMC in Houston, Texas each have their own programs. For veterans who are not at a VA facility that has an agreement with GMS and do not have a different genetics program, their providers need to make referrals to community care.

Vickie Venne. How do patients get referred and what happens at their facility when the patients return to the specialty and primary care providers (PCP)? Ishta, who do you refer to GMS and how do you define them initially?

Ishta Thakar, MD, FACP. Referrals can come at a couple of points during a veteran’s journey at the VA. The VA covers obstetrics care for women veterans. Whenever a PCP or a women’s health provider is doing the initial history and physical on a new patient, if the female veteran has an extensive family history of breast, ovarian, colon, or endometrial cancer, then we take more history and we send a consult to GMS. The second instance would be if she tells us that she has had a personal history of breast, ovarian, or endometrial cancer and she has never had genetic testing. The third instance would be whenever we have a female veteran who is diagnosed with breast, ovarian, endometrial, or colon cancer. We would definitely talk to her about genetic counseling and send a referral to GMS. We would ask for a GMS consult for a patient with advanced maternal age, with exposure to some kind of teratogens, with an abnormal ultrasound, a family history of chromosomal disorders, or if she’s seeing an obstetrician who wants her to be tested. And finally, if a patient has a constellation of multiple cancers in the family and we don’t know what’s going on, we would also refer the patient to GMS.

Vickie Venne. That would be why GMS fields over 150 referrals every week. It is a large list. We also see veterans with personal or family histories of neurologic or cardiologic concerns as well.

Renee, as somebody who fields many of these referrals from unaffected individuals, what is the family history process?

 

 

Renee Rider. We don’t expect the referring provider to be a genetic expert. When a provider is seeing a constellation of several different cancers and he or she doesn’t know if there’s anything going on genetically or even if it’s possible, absolutely they should put in a referral to GMS. We have a triage counselor who reviews every consult that comes into our service within 24 hours.

Many cancers are due to exposures that are not concerning for a genetic etiology. We can let you know that it is not concerning, and the PCP can counsel the patient that it is very unlikely to be genetic in nature. We still give feedback even if it’s not someone who is appropriate for genetic counseling and testing. It is important to reach out to GMS even if you don’t know whether a cancer is genetic in nature.

It also is important to take your time when gathering family histories. We get a lot of patients who say, “There’s a lot of cancer in my family. I have no idea who had cancer, but I know a lot of people had cancer.” That’s not the day to put in a referral to GMS. At that point, providers should tell the patient to get as much information as they can about the family history and then reassess. It’s important for us to have accurate information. We’ve had several times where we receive a referral because the veteran says that their sister had ovarian cancer. And then when our staff calls, they later find out it was cervical cancer. That’s not a good use of the veteran’s time, and it’s not a good use of VA resources.

The other important thing about family histories is keeping the questions open-ended. Often a PCP or specialist will ask about a certain type of cancer: “Does anyone in your family have breast cancer, ovarian cancer?” Or if the veteran
is getting a colonoscopy, they ask, “Does anybody have colon cancer?” Where really, we need to be a little bit more open-ended. We prefer questions like, “Has anyone in your family
had cancer?” because that’s the question that prompts a response of, “Yes, 3 people in my family have had thyroid cancer.” That’s very important for us to know, too.

If you do get a positive response, probe a little bit more: what kind of cancer did someone have, how old were they when they had their cancer? And how are they related? Is this an aunt on your mom’s side or on your dad’s side? Those are the types of information that we need to figure out if that person needs a referral.

Vickie Venne. It’s a different story when people already have a cancer diagnosis. Which hematology or oncology patients are good referrals and why?

Lisa Arfons, MD. When patients come in with newly diagnosed cancer, breast for example, it is an emotional diagnosis and psychologicallydistressing. Oftentimes, they want to know why this happened to them. The issues surrounding
genetic testing also becomes very emotional. They want to know whether their children are at risk as well.

Genetic discussions take a long time. I rarely do that on the first visit. I always record for myself in my clinic note if something strikes me regarding the patient’s diagnosis. I quickly run through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to remind myself of what I need to go over with the patient at our next meeting. Most patients don’t need to be referred to GMS, and most patients don’t need to be tested once they’re seen.

I often save the referral discussion for after I have established a rapport with a patient, we have a treatment plan, or they already have had their first surgery. Therefore, we are not making decisions about their first surgery based on the genetic medicine results.

 

 

If I’m considering a referral, I do a deeper dive with the patient. Is the patient older or younger than 45 years? I pull up NCCN guidelines and we go through the entire checklist.

We have male breast cancer patients at the VA—probably more than the community—so we refer those patients. At the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC in Ohio, we have had some in-depth discussions about referring male breast cancer patients for genetic testing and whether it was beneficial to older patients with male breast cancer. Ultimately, we decided that it was important for our male veterans to be tested because it empowered them to have better understanding of their medical conditions that may not just have effect on them but on their offspring, and that that can be a source of psychological and emotional support.

I don’t refer most people to GMS once I go through the checklist. I appreciate the action for an e-consult within the CPRS telemedicine consult itself, as Renee noted. If it is not necessary, GMS makes it an e-consult. I try to communicate that I don’t know whether it is necessary or not so that GMS understands where I’m coming from.

Vickie Venne. In the US Department of Defense (DoD) the process is quite different. Mauricio, can you explain the clinical referral process, who is referred, and how that works from a laboratory perspective?

Maj De Castro, MD, FACMG, USAF. The VA has led the way in demonstrating how to best provide for the medical genetic needs of a large, decentralized population distributed all over the country. Over the last 5 to 10 years, the DoD has made strides in recognizing the role genetics plays in the practice of everyday medicine and redoubling efforts to meet the needs of servicemembers.

The way that it traditionally has worked in the DoD is that military treatment facilities (MTFs) that have dedicated geneticists and genetic counselors: Kessler Medical Center in Mississippi, Walter Reed National Military Medical
Center in Maryland, Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii, Madigan Army Medical Center in Washington, Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas, Naval Medical Center San Diego in California, and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in Virginia. A patient seeking genetic evaluation, counseling, or testing in those larger facilities would be referred to the genetics service by their primary care manager. Wait times vary, but it would usually be weeks, maybe months. However, the great majority of MTFs do not have dedicated genetics support. Most of the time, those patients would have to be referred to the local civilian community—there was no process for them to be seen in in the military healthcare system—with wait times that exceed 6 to 8 months in some cases. This is due to just not a military but a national shortage of genetics professionals (counselors and physicians).

Last year we started the telegenetics initiative, which is small compared to the VA—it is comprised of 2 geneticists and 1 genetic counselor—but with the full intent of growing it over time. Its purpose is to extend the resources we
had to other MTFs. Genetics professionals stationed state-side can provide care to remote facilities with limited access to local genetics support such as Cannon Air Force Base (AFB) or overseas facilities such as Spangdahlem AFB in Germany.

We recognize there are military-specific needs for the DoD regarding the genetic counseling process that have to take into account readiness, genetic discrimination, continued ability to serve and fitness for duty. For this important reason, we are seeking to expand our telegenetics initiative. The goal is to be able to provide 100% of all genetic counseling in-house, so to speak.

Currently, providers at the 4 pilot sites (Cannon AFB, Fort Bragg, Spangdahlem AFB, and Guantanamo Bay) send us referrals. We triage them and assign the patient to see a geneticist or a counselor depending on the indication.

 

 

On the laboratory side, it has been a very interesting experience. Because we provide comprehensive germline cancer testing at very little cost to the provider at any MTF, we have had high numbers of test requests over the years.
In addition to saving the DoD millions of dollars in testing, we have learned some interesting lessons in the process. For instance, we have worked closely with several different groups to better understand how to educate providers on the genetic counseling and testing process. This has allowed us to craft a thorough and inclusive consent form that addresses the needs of the DoD. We have also learned valuable lessons about population-based screening vs evidence-based testing, and lessons surrounding narrow-based testing (BRCA1 and BRCA2 only testing) vs ordering a more comprehensive panel that includes other genes supported by strong evidence (such as PALB2, CHEK2, or TP53).

For example, we have found that in a significant proportion of individuals with and without family history, there are clinically relevant variants in genes other than BRCA1 or BRCA2. And so, we have made part of our consent process,
a statement on secondary findings. If the patient consents, we will report pathogenic variants in other genes known to be associated with cancer (with strong evidence) even if the provider ordered a narrow panel such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing only. In about 1% to 4% of patients that would otherwise not meet NCCN guidelines, we’ve reported variants that were clinically actionable and changed the medical management of that patient.

We feel strongly that this is a conversation that we need to have in our field, and we realize it’s a complex issue, maybe we need to expand who gets testing. Guideline based testing is missing some patients out there that could benefit from it.

Vickie Venne. There certainly are many sides to the conversation of population-based vs evidence-based genetic testing. Genetic testing policies are changing rapidly. There are teams exploring comprehensive gene sequencing for
newborns and how that potential 1-time test can provide information will be reinterpreted as a person goes from cradle to grave. However, unlike the current DoD process, in the VA there are patients who we don’t see.

Renee Rider. I want to talk about money. When we order a genetic test, that test is paid for by the pathology department at the patient’s VAMC. Most of the pathology departments we work with are clear that they only can provide
genetic testing that is considered medically necessary. Thus, we review each test to make sure it meets established guidelines for testing. We don’t do population genetic screening as there isn’t evidence or guidelines to support offering it. We are strict about who does and does not get genetic testing, partly because we have a responsibility to pathology departments and to the taxpayers.

GMS focuses on conditions that are inherited, that is to say, we deal with germline genetics. Therefore, we discontinue referrals for somatic requests, such as when an OncotypeDX test is requested. It is my understanding that pharmacogenetic referrals may be sent to the new PHASeR initiative, which is a joint collaboration between the VA and Sanford Health and is headed by Deepak Voora, MD.

We generally don’t see patients who still are having diagnostic procedures done. For example, if a veteran has a suspicious breast mass, we recommend that the provider workup the mass before referring to GMS. Regardless of a genetic test result, a suspicious mass needs to be worked up. And, knowing if the mass is cancerous could change how we would proceed with the genetic workup. For example, if the mass were not cancerous, we may recommend that an affected relative have the first genetic evaluation. Furthermore, knowing if the patient has cancer changes how we interpret negative test results.

Another group of patients we don’t see are those who already had genetic testing done by the referring provider. It’s a VA directive that if you order a test, you’re the person who is responsible for giving the results. We agree with
this directive. If you don’t feel comfortable giving back test results, don’t order the test. Often, when a provider sends a patient to us after the test was done, we discover that the patient didn’t have appropriate pretest counseling. A test result, such as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), should never be a surprise to either the provider or the patient.

Ishta Thakar. For newly diagnosed cancers, the first call is to the patient to inform them that they have cancer. We usually bring up genetic counseling or testing, if applicable, when they are ready to accept the diagnosis and have a conversation about it. All our consults are via telehealth, so none of our patients physically come to GMS in Salt Lake City. All the consults are done virtually.

For newly diagnosed patients, we would send a consult in within a couple of weeks. For patients who had a family history, the referral would not be urgent: They can be seen within about 3 months. The turnaround times for GMS are so much better than what we have available in the community where it’s often at least 6 months, as previously noted.

 

 

Vickie Venne. Thank you. We continue to work on that. One of the interesting things that we’ve done, which is the brainchild of Renee, is shared medical appointments.

Renee Rider. We have now created 4 group appointments for people who have concerns surrounding cancer. One group is for people who don’t have cancer but have family members who have cancer who may be the best testing candidate. For example, that might be a 30-year old who tells you that her mother had breast cancer at age 45 years. Her mother is still living, but she’s never had genetic testing. We would put her in a group where we discuss the importance of talking to the family members and encouraging them to go get that first genetic evaluation in the family.

Our second group is for people who don’t have cancer themselves, but have a family history of cancer and those affected relatives have passed away. The family needs a genetic evaluation, and the veteran is the best living testing candidate.

That group is geared towards education about the test and informed consent.

The third group is for people with cancer who qualify for genetic testing. We provide all of the information that they need to make an informed decision on having (or not having) genetic testing.

The final group is for people who have family histories of known genetic mutations in cancer genes. Again, we provide them with all of the information that they need to make an informed decision regarding genetic testing.

With the shared medical appointments, we have been able to greatly increase the number of patients that we can see. Our first 3 groups all meet once a week and can have 10 or 12 veterans. Our last group meets every other week and has a maximum of 6 veterans. Wait times for our groups are generally ≤ 2 weeks. All veterans can choose to have an individual appointment if they prefer. We regularly get unsolicited feedback from veterans that they learn a lot during our groups and appreciate it.

Our group appointments have lowered the wait time for the people in the groups. And, they’ve lowered the wait time for the people who are seen individually. They’ve allowed us to address the backlog of patients waiting to see us in a more timely manner. Our wait time for individual appointment had been approaching 6 months, and it is now about 1.5 months.

We also think that being in a group normalizes the experience. Most people don’t know anyone who has had genetic testing. Now, they are in a group with others going through the same experience. In one of my groups, a male veteran talked about his breast cancer being really rare. Another male in the group volunteer that he had breast cancer, too. They both seemed to appreciate not feeling alone.

 

 

Vickie Venne. I want to move to our final piece. What do the referring providers tell the patients about a genetics referral and what should they expect?

Lisa Arfons. First and foremost, I tell the patient that it is a discussion with a genetic counselor. I make it clear that they understand that it is a discussion. They then can agree or not agree to accept genetic testing if it’s recommended.

I talk in general terms about why I think it can be important for them to have the discussion, but that we don’t have great data for decisionmaking. We understand that there are more options for preventive measures but then it ultimately will be a discussion between the PCP, the patient, and their family members about how they proceed about the preventive measures. I want them to start thinking about how the genetic test results, regardless of if they are positive, negative, or a variant that is not yet understood, can impact their offspring.

Probably I am biased, as my mom had breast cancer and she underwent genetic testing. So, I have a bit of an offspring focus as well. I already mentioned that you must discuss about whether or not it’s worth screening or doing any preventive measures on contralateral breast, or screening for things like prostate cancer at age 75 years. And so I focus more on the family members.

I try to stay in my lane. I am extremely uncomfortable when I hear about someone in our facility sending off a blood test and then asking someone else to interpret the results and discuss it with the patient. Just because it’s a blood test and it’s easy to order doesn’t mean that it is easy to know what to do with it, and it needs to be respected as such.

Ishta Thakar. Our PCPs let the patients know that GMS will contact the patient to schedule a video appointment and that if they want to bring any family members along with them, they’re welcome to. We also explain that certain cancers are genetically based and that if they have a genetic mutation, it can be passed on to their offspring. I also explain that if they have certain mutations, then we would be more vigilant in screening them for other kinds of cancers. That’s the reason that we refer that they get counseled. After counseling if they’re ready for the testing, then the counselor orders the test and does the posttest discussion with the patient.

Vickie Venne. In the VA, people are invited to attend a genetic counseling session but can certainly decline. Does the the DoD have a different approach?

Maj De Castro. I would say that the great majority of active duty patients have limited knowledge of what to expect out of a genetics appointment. One of the main things we do is educate them on their rights and protections and the potential risks associated with performing genetic testing, in particular when it comes to their continued ability to serve. Genetic testing for clinical purposes is not mandatory in the DoD, patients can certainly decline testing. Because genetic testing has the potential to alter someone’s career, it is critical we have a very thorough and comprehensive pre- and posttest counseling sessions that includes everything from career implications to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and genetic discrimination in the military, in addition to the standard of care medical information.

Scenarios in which a servicemember is negatively impacted by pursuing a genetic diagnosis are very rare. More than 90% of the time, genetic counseling and/or testing has no adverse career effect. When they do, it is out of concern for the safety and wellbeing of a servicemember. For instance, if we diagnosis a patient with a genetic form of some arrhythmogenic disorder, part of the treatment plan can be to limit that person’s level of exertion, because it could potentially lead to death. We don’t want to put someone in a situation that may trigger that.

Vickie Venne. We also have a certain number of veterans who ask us about their service disability pay and the impact of genetic testing on it. One example is veterans with prostate cancer who were exposed to Agent Orange, which has been associated with increased risk for developing prostate cancer. I have had men who have been referred for genetic evaluation ask, “Well, if I have an identifiable mutation, how will that impact my service disability?” So we discuss the carcinogenic process that may include an inherited component as well as the environmental risk factors. I think that’s a unique issue for a population we’re honored to be able to serve.

 

 

Renee Rider. When we are talking about how the population of veterans is unique, I think it is also important to acknowledge mental health. I’ve had several patients tell me that they have posttraumatic stress disorder or anxiety and the idea of getting an indeterminant test result, such as VUS, would really weigh on them.

In the community, a lot of providers order the biggest panel they can, but for these patients who are worried about getting those indeterminant test results, I’ve been able to work with them to limit the size of the panel. I order a small panel that only has genes that have implications for that veteran’s clinical management. For example, in a patient with ductal breast cancer, I remove the genes that cause lobular breast cancer. This takes a bit of knowledge and critical thinking that our VA genetic counselors have because they have experience with veterans and their needs.

As our time draws to a close, I have one final thought. This has been a heartwarming conversation today. It is really nice to hear that GMS services are appreciated. We in GMS want to partner with our referring providers. Help us help you! When you enter a referral, please let us know how we can help you. The more we understand why you are sending your veteran to GMS, the more we can help meet your needs. If there are any questions or problems, feel free to send us an email or pick up the phone and call us.

Vickie Venne, MS. What is the Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)?

Renee Rider, JD, MS, LCGC. GMS is a telehealth service. We are part of central office and field stationed at the George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Salt Lake City, Utah. We provide care to about 90 VAMCs and their associated clinics. Veterans are referred to us by entering an interfacility consult in the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). We review the consult to determine whether the patient needs to be seen, whether we can answer with an e-consult, or whether we need more information. For the patients who need an appointment, the telehealth department at the veteran’s VA facility will contact the patient to arrange a visit with us. At the time of the appointment, the facility has a staff member available to seat the patient and connect them to us using video equipment.

We provide genetic care for all specialties, including cancer, women’s health, cardiology and neurology. In today’s discussion, we are focusing on cancer care.

Vickie Venne. What do patients do at facilities that don’t get care through GMS?

Renee Rider. There are a handful of facilities that provide their own genetic care in-house. For example, VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts and the Michael E. DeBakey VAMC in Houston, Texas each have their own programs. For veterans who are not at a VA facility that has an agreement with GMS and do not have a different genetics program, their providers need to make referrals to community care.

Vickie Venne. How do patients get referred and what happens at their facility when the patients return to the specialty and primary care providers (PCP)? Ishta, who do you refer to GMS and how do you define them initially?

Ishta Thakar, MD, FACP. Referrals can come at a couple of points during a veteran’s journey at the VA. The VA covers obstetrics care for women veterans. Whenever a PCP or a women’s health provider is doing the initial history and physical on a new patient, if the female veteran has an extensive family history of breast, ovarian, colon, or endometrial cancer, then we take more history and we send a consult to GMS. The second instance would be if she tells us that she has had a personal history of breast, ovarian, or endometrial cancer and she has never had genetic testing. The third instance would be whenever we have a female veteran who is diagnosed with breast, ovarian, endometrial, or colon cancer. We would definitely talk to her about genetic counseling and send a referral to GMS. We would ask for a GMS consult for a patient with advanced maternal age, with exposure to some kind of teratogens, with an abnormal ultrasound, a family history of chromosomal disorders, or if she’s seeing an obstetrician who wants her to be tested. And finally, if a patient has a constellation of multiple cancers in the family and we don’t know what’s going on, we would also refer the patient to GMS.

Vickie Venne. That would be why GMS fields over 150 referrals every week. It is a large list. We also see veterans with personal or family histories of neurologic or cardiologic concerns as well.

Renee, as somebody who fields many of these referrals from unaffected individuals, what is the family history process?

 

 

Renee Rider. We don’t expect the referring provider to be a genetic expert. When a provider is seeing a constellation of several different cancers and he or she doesn’t know if there’s anything going on genetically or even if it’s possible, absolutely they should put in a referral to GMS. We have a triage counselor who reviews every consult that comes into our service within 24 hours.

Many cancers are due to exposures that are not concerning for a genetic etiology. We can let you know that it is not concerning, and the PCP can counsel the patient that it is very unlikely to be genetic in nature. We still give feedback even if it’s not someone who is appropriate for genetic counseling and testing. It is important to reach out to GMS even if you don’t know whether a cancer is genetic in nature.

It also is important to take your time when gathering family histories. We get a lot of patients who say, “There’s a lot of cancer in my family. I have no idea who had cancer, but I know a lot of people had cancer.” That’s not the day to put in a referral to GMS. At that point, providers should tell the patient to get as much information as they can about the family history and then reassess. It’s important for us to have accurate information. We’ve had several times where we receive a referral because the veteran says that their sister had ovarian cancer. And then when our staff calls, they later find out it was cervical cancer. That’s not a good use of the veteran’s time, and it’s not a good use of VA resources.

The other important thing about family histories is keeping the questions open-ended. Often a PCP or specialist will ask about a certain type of cancer: “Does anyone in your family have breast cancer, ovarian cancer?” Or if the veteran
is getting a colonoscopy, they ask, “Does anybody have colon cancer?” Where really, we need to be a little bit more open-ended. We prefer questions like, “Has anyone in your family
had cancer?” because that’s the question that prompts a response of, “Yes, 3 people in my family have had thyroid cancer.” That’s very important for us to know, too.

If you do get a positive response, probe a little bit more: what kind of cancer did someone have, how old were they when they had their cancer? And how are they related? Is this an aunt on your mom’s side or on your dad’s side? Those are the types of information that we need to figure out if that person needs a referral.

Vickie Venne. It’s a different story when people already have a cancer diagnosis. Which hematology or oncology patients are good referrals and why?

Lisa Arfons, MD. When patients come in with newly diagnosed cancer, breast for example, it is an emotional diagnosis and psychologicallydistressing. Oftentimes, they want to know why this happened to them. The issues surrounding
genetic testing also becomes very emotional. They want to know whether their children are at risk as well.

Genetic discussions take a long time. I rarely do that on the first visit. I always record for myself in my clinic note if something strikes me regarding the patient’s diagnosis. I quickly run through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to remind myself of what I need to go over with the patient at our next meeting. Most patients don’t need to be referred to GMS, and most patients don’t need to be tested once they’re seen.

I often save the referral discussion for after I have established a rapport with a patient, we have a treatment plan, or they already have had their first surgery. Therefore, we are not making decisions about their first surgery based on the genetic medicine results.

 

 

If I’m considering a referral, I do a deeper dive with the patient. Is the patient older or younger than 45 years? I pull up NCCN guidelines and we go through the entire checklist.

We have male breast cancer patients at the VA—probably more than the community—so we refer those patients. At the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC in Ohio, we have had some in-depth discussions about referring male breast cancer patients for genetic testing and whether it was beneficial to older patients with male breast cancer. Ultimately, we decided that it was important for our male veterans to be tested because it empowered them to have better understanding of their medical conditions that may not just have effect on them but on their offspring, and that that can be a source of psychological and emotional support.

I don’t refer most people to GMS once I go through the checklist. I appreciate the action for an e-consult within the CPRS telemedicine consult itself, as Renee noted. If it is not necessary, GMS makes it an e-consult. I try to communicate that I don’t know whether it is necessary or not so that GMS understands where I’m coming from.

Vickie Venne. In the US Department of Defense (DoD) the process is quite different. Mauricio, can you explain the clinical referral process, who is referred, and how that works from a laboratory perspective?

Maj De Castro, MD, FACMG, USAF. The VA has led the way in demonstrating how to best provide for the medical genetic needs of a large, decentralized population distributed all over the country. Over the last 5 to 10 years, the DoD has made strides in recognizing the role genetics plays in the practice of everyday medicine and redoubling efforts to meet the needs of servicemembers.

The way that it traditionally has worked in the DoD is that military treatment facilities (MTFs) that have dedicated geneticists and genetic counselors: Kessler Medical Center in Mississippi, Walter Reed National Military Medical
Center in Maryland, Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii, Madigan Army Medical Center in Washington, Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas, Naval Medical Center San Diego in California, and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in Virginia. A patient seeking genetic evaluation, counseling, or testing in those larger facilities would be referred to the genetics service by their primary care manager. Wait times vary, but it would usually be weeks, maybe months. However, the great majority of MTFs do not have dedicated genetics support. Most of the time, those patients would have to be referred to the local civilian community—there was no process for them to be seen in in the military healthcare system—with wait times that exceed 6 to 8 months in some cases. This is due to just not a military but a national shortage of genetics professionals (counselors and physicians).

Last year we started the telegenetics initiative, which is small compared to the VA—it is comprised of 2 geneticists and 1 genetic counselor—but with the full intent of growing it over time. Its purpose is to extend the resources we
had to other MTFs. Genetics professionals stationed state-side can provide care to remote facilities with limited access to local genetics support such as Cannon Air Force Base (AFB) or overseas facilities such as Spangdahlem AFB in Germany.

We recognize there are military-specific needs for the DoD regarding the genetic counseling process that have to take into account readiness, genetic discrimination, continued ability to serve and fitness for duty. For this important reason, we are seeking to expand our telegenetics initiative. The goal is to be able to provide 100% of all genetic counseling in-house, so to speak.

Currently, providers at the 4 pilot sites (Cannon AFB, Fort Bragg, Spangdahlem AFB, and Guantanamo Bay) send us referrals. We triage them and assign the patient to see a geneticist or a counselor depending on the indication.

 

 

On the laboratory side, it has been a very interesting experience. Because we provide comprehensive germline cancer testing at very little cost to the provider at any MTF, we have had high numbers of test requests over the years.
In addition to saving the DoD millions of dollars in testing, we have learned some interesting lessons in the process. For instance, we have worked closely with several different groups to better understand how to educate providers on the genetic counseling and testing process. This has allowed us to craft a thorough and inclusive consent form that addresses the needs of the DoD. We have also learned valuable lessons about population-based screening vs evidence-based testing, and lessons surrounding narrow-based testing (BRCA1 and BRCA2 only testing) vs ordering a more comprehensive panel that includes other genes supported by strong evidence (such as PALB2, CHEK2, or TP53).

For example, we have found that in a significant proportion of individuals with and without family history, there are clinically relevant variants in genes other than BRCA1 or BRCA2. And so, we have made part of our consent process,
a statement on secondary findings. If the patient consents, we will report pathogenic variants in other genes known to be associated with cancer (with strong evidence) even if the provider ordered a narrow panel such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing only. In about 1% to 4% of patients that would otherwise not meet NCCN guidelines, we’ve reported variants that were clinically actionable and changed the medical management of that patient.

We feel strongly that this is a conversation that we need to have in our field, and we realize it’s a complex issue, maybe we need to expand who gets testing. Guideline based testing is missing some patients out there that could benefit from it.

Vickie Venne. There certainly are many sides to the conversation of population-based vs evidence-based genetic testing. Genetic testing policies are changing rapidly. There are teams exploring comprehensive gene sequencing for
newborns and how that potential 1-time test can provide information will be reinterpreted as a person goes from cradle to grave. However, unlike the current DoD process, in the VA there are patients who we don’t see.

Renee Rider. I want to talk about money. When we order a genetic test, that test is paid for by the pathology department at the patient’s VAMC. Most of the pathology departments we work with are clear that they only can provide
genetic testing that is considered medically necessary. Thus, we review each test to make sure it meets established guidelines for testing. We don’t do population genetic screening as there isn’t evidence or guidelines to support offering it. We are strict about who does and does not get genetic testing, partly because we have a responsibility to pathology departments and to the taxpayers.

GMS focuses on conditions that are inherited, that is to say, we deal with germline genetics. Therefore, we discontinue referrals for somatic requests, such as when an OncotypeDX test is requested. It is my understanding that pharmacogenetic referrals may be sent to the new PHASeR initiative, which is a joint collaboration between the VA and Sanford Health and is headed by Deepak Voora, MD.

We generally don’t see patients who still are having diagnostic procedures done. For example, if a veteran has a suspicious breast mass, we recommend that the provider workup the mass before referring to GMS. Regardless of a genetic test result, a suspicious mass needs to be worked up. And, knowing if the mass is cancerous could change how we would proceed with the genetic workup. For example, if the mass were not cancerous, we may recommend that an affected relative have the first genetic evaluation. Furthermore, knowing if the patient has cancer changes how we interpret negative test results.

Another group of patients we don’t see are those who already had genetic testing done by the referring provider. It’s a VA directive that if you order a test, you’re the person who is responsible for giving the results. We agree with
this directive. If you don’t feel comfortable giving back test results, don’t order the test. Often, when a provider sends a patient to us after the test was done, we discover that the patient didn’t have appropriate pretest counseling. A test result, such as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), should never be a surprise to either the provider or the patient.

Ishta Thakar. For newly diagnosed cancers, the first call is to the patient to inform them that they have cancer. We usually bring up genetic counseling or testing, if applicable, when they are ready to accept the diagnosis and have a conversation about it. All our consults are via telehealth, so none of our patients physically come to GMS in Salt Lake City. All the consults are done virtually.

For newly diagnosed patients, we would send a consult in within a couple of weeks. For patients who had a family history, the referral would not be urgent: They can be seen within about 3 months. The turnaround times for GMS are so much better than what we have available in the community where it’s often at least 6 months, as previously noted.

 

 

Vickie Venne. Thank you. We continue to work on that. One of the interesting things that we’ve done, which is the brainchild of Renee, is shared medical appointments.

Renee Rider. We have now created 4 group appointments for people who have concerns surrounding cancer. One group is for people who don’t have cancer but have family members who have cancer who may be the best testing candidate. For example, that might be a 30-year old who tells you that her mother had breast cancer at age 45 years. Her mother is still living, but she’s never had genetic testing. We would put her in a group where we discuss the importance of talking to the family members and encouraging them to go get that first genetic evaluation in the family.

Our second group is for people who don’t have cancer themselves, but have a family history of cancer and those affected relatives have passed away. The family needs a genetic evaluation, and the veteran is the best living testing candidate.

That group is geared towards education about the test and informed consent.

The third group is for people with cancer who qualify for genetic testing. We provide all of the information that they need to make an informed decision on having (or not having) genetic testing.

The final group is for people who have family histories of known genetic mutations in cancer genes. Again, we provide them with all of the information that they need to make an informed decision regarding genetic testing.

With the shared medical appointments, we have been able to greatly increase the number of patients that we can see. Our first 3 groups all meet once a week and can have 10 or 12 veterans. Our last group meets every other week and has a maximum of 6 veterans. Wait times for our groups are generally ≤ 2 weeks. All veterans can choose to have an individual appointment if they prefer. We regularly get unsolicited feedback from veterans that they learn a lot during our groups and appreciate it.

Our group appointments have lowered the wait time for the people in the groups. And, they’ve lowered the wait time for the people who are seen individually. They’ve allowed us to address the backlog of patients waiting to see us in a more timely manner. Our wait time for individual appointment had been approaching 6 months, and it is now about 1.5 months.

We also think that being in a group normalizes the experience. Most people don’t know anyone who has had genetic testing. Now, they are in a group with others going through the same experience. In one of my groups, a male veteran talked about his breast cancer being really rare. Another male in the group volunteer that he had breast cancer, too. They both seemed to appreciate not feeling alone.

 

 

Vickie Venne. I want to move to our final piece. What do the referring providers tell the patients about a genetics referral and what should they expect?

Lisa Arfons. First and foremost, I tell the patient that it is a discussion with a genetic counselor. I make it clear that they understand that it is a discussion. They then can agree or not agree to accept genetic testing if it’s recommended.

I talk in general terms about why I think it can be important for them to have the discussion, but that we don’t have great data for decisionmaking. We understand that there are more options for preventive measures but then it ultimately will be a discussion between the PCP, the patient, and their family members about how they proceed about the preventive measures. I want them to start thinking about how the genetic test results, regardless of if they are positive, negative, or a variant that is not yet understood, can impact their offspring.

Probably I am biased, as my mom had breast cancer and she underwent genetic testing. So, I have a bit of an offspring focus as well. I already mentioned that you must discuss about whether or not it’s worth screening or doing any preventive measures on contralateral breast, or screening for things like prostate cancer at age 75 years. And so I focus more on the family members.

I try to stay in my lane. I am extremely uncomfortable when I hear about someone in our facility sending off a blood test and then asking someone else to interpret the results and discuss it with the patient. Just because it’s a blood test and it’s easy to order doesn’t mean that it is easy to know what to do with it, and it needs to be respected as such.

Ishta Thakar. Our PCPs let the patients know that GMS will contact the patient to schedule a video appointment and that if they want to bring any family members along with them, they’re welcome to. We also explain that certain cancers are genetically based and that if they have a genetic mutation, it can be passed on to their offspring. I also explain that if they have certain mutations, then we would be more vigilant in screening them for other kinds of cancers. That’s the reason that we refer that they get counseled. After counseling if they’re ready for the testing, then the counselor orders the test and does the posttest discussion with the patient.

Vickie Venne. In the VA, people are invited to attend a genetic counseling session but can certainly decline. Does the the DoD have a different approach?

Maj De Castro. I would say that the great majority of active duty patients have limited knowledge of what to expect out of a genetics appointment. One of the main things we do is educate them on their rights and protections and the potential risks associated with performing genetic testing, in particular when it comes to their continued ability to serve. Genetic testing for clinical purposes is not mandatory in the DoD, patients can certainly decline testing. Because genetic testing has the potential to alter someone’s career, it is critical we have a very thorough and comprehensive pre- and posttest counseling sessions that includes everything from career implications to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and genetic discrimination in the military, in addition to the standard of care medical information.

Scenarios in which a servicemember is negatively impacted by pursuing a genetic diagnosis are very rare. More than 90% of the time, genetic counseling and/or testing has no adverse career effect. When they do, it is out of concern for the safety and wellbeing of a servicemember. For instance, if we diagnosis a patient with a genetic form of some arrhythmogenic disorder, part of the treatment plan can be to limit that person’s level of exertion, because it could potentially lead to death. We don’t want to put someone in a situation that may trigger that.

Vickie Venne. We also have a certain number of veterans who ask us about their service disability pay and the impact of genetic testing on it. One example is veterans with prostate cancer who were exposed to Agent Orange, which has been associated with increased risk for developing prostate cancer. I have had men who have been referred for genetic evaluation ask, “Well, if I have an identifiable mutation, how will that impact my service disability?” So we discuss the carcinogenic process that may include an inherited component as well as the environmental risk factors. I think that’s a unique issue for a population we’re honored to be able to serve.

 

 

Renee Rider. When we are talking about how the population of veterans is unique, I think it is also important to acknowledge mental health. I’ve had several patients tell me that they have posttraumatic stress disorder or anxiety and the idea of getting an indeterminant test result, such as VUS, would really weigh on them.

In the community, a lot of providers order the biggest panel they can, but for these patients who are worried about getting those indeterminant test results, I’ve been able to work with them to limit the size of the panel. I order a small panel that only has genes that have implications for that veteran’s clinical management. For example, in a patient with ductal breast cancer, I remove the genes that cause lobular breast cancer. This takes a bit of knowledge and critical thinking that our VA genetic counselors have because they have experience with veterans and their needs.

As our time draws to a close, I have one final thought. This has been a heartwarming conversation today. It is really nice to hear that GMS services are appreciated. We in GMS want to partner with our referring providers. Help us help you! When you enter a referral, please let us know how we can help you. The more we understand why you are sending your veteran to GMS, the more we can help meet your needs. If there are any questions or problems, feel free to send us an email or pick up the phone and call us.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 36(5)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 36(5)s
Page Number
S15-S20
Page Number
S15-S20
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Genomic Medicine and Genetic Counseling in the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense
Display Headline
Genomic Medicine and Genetic Counseling in the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
Roundtable
Gate On Date
Thu, 08/08/2019 - 08:45
Un-Gate On Date
Thu, 08/08/2019 - 08:45
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Thu, 08/08/2019 - 08:45
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media