Screening Familial Risk for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

Importance: Most patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants for breast cancer have not undergone genetic testing. Objective: To identify patients meeting family history criteria for genetic testing in the electronic health record (EHR). Design, Setting, and Participants: This study included both cross-sectional (observation date, February 1, 2024) and retrospective cohort (observation period, January 1, 2018, to February 1, 2024) analyses. Participants included patients aged 18 to 79 years enrolled in Renown Health, a large health system in Northern Nevada. Genotype was known for 38 003 patients enrolled in Healthy Nevada Project (HNP), a population genomics study. Exposure: An EHR indicating that a patient is positive for criteria according to the Seven-Question Family History Questionnaire (hereafter, FHS7 positive) assessing familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the presence of P/LP variants in the ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, or PALB2 genes (cross-sectional analysis) or a diagnosis of cancer (cohort analysis). Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates per 100 000 patients per year were calculated using the 2020 US population as the standard. Hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer attributable to FHS7-positive status were estimated using cause-specific hazard models. Results: Among 835 727 patients, 423 393 (50.7%) were female and 29 913 (3.6%) were FHS7 positive. Among those who were FHS7 positive, 24 535 (82.0%) had no evidence of prior genetic testing for HBOC in their EHR. Being FHS7 positive was associated with increased prevalence of P/LP variants in BRCA1/BRCA2 (odds ratio [OR], 3.34; 95% CI, 2.48-4.47), CHEK2 (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.05-2.43), and PALB2 (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.23-6.16) among HNP female individuals, and in BRCA1/BRCA2 (OR, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.93-5.56) among HNP male individuals. Being FHS7 positive was also associated with significantly increased risk of cancer among 131 622 non-HNP female individuals (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.22-1.70) but not among 114 982 non-HNP male individuals (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.87-1.42). Among 1527 HNP survey respondents, 352 of 383 EHR-FHS7 positive patients (91.9%) were survey-FHS7 positive, but only 352 of 883 survey-FHS7 positive patients (39.9%) were EHR-FHS7 positive. Of the 29 913 FHS7-positive patients, 19 764 (66.1%) were identified only after parsing free-text family history comments. Socioeconomic differences were also observed between EHR-FHS7-negative and EHR-FHS7-positive patients, suggesting disparities in recording family history. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, EHR-derived FHS7 identified thousands of patients with familial risk for breast cancer, indicating a substantial gap in genetic testing. However, limitations in EHR family history data suggested that other identification methods, such as direct-to-patient questionnaires, are required to fully address this gap.

Incomplete Penetrance of Population-Based Genetic Screening Results in Electronic Health Record.

The clinical value of population-based genetic screening projects depends on the actions taken on the findings. The Healthy Nevada Project (HNP) is an all-comer genetic screening and research project based in northern Nevada. HNP participants with CDC Tier 1 findings of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome (LS), or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) are notified and provided with genetic counseling. However, the HNP subsequently takes a "hands-off" approach: it is the responsibility of notified participants to share their findings with their healthcare providers, and providers are expected to implement the recommended action plans. Thus, the HNP presents an opportunity to evaluate the efficiency of participant and provider responses to notification of important genetic findings, using electronic health records (EHRs) at Renown Health (a large regional hospital in northern Nevada). Out of 520 HNP participants with findings, we identified 250 participants who were notified of their findings and who had an EHR. 107 of these participants responded to a survey, with 76 (71%) indicating that they had shared their findings with their healthcare providers. However, a sufficiently specific genetic diagnosis appeared in the EHRs and problem lists of only 22 and 10%, respectively, of participants without prior knowledge. Furthermore, review of participant EHRs provided evidence of possible relevant changes in clinical care for only a handful of participants. Up to 19% of participants would have benefited from earlier screening due to prior presentation of their condition. These results suggest that continuous support for both participants and their providers is necessary to maximize the benefit of population-based genetic screening. We recommend that genetic screening projects require participants' consent to directly document their genetic findings in their EHRs. Additionally, we recommend that they provide healthcare providers with ongoing training regarding documentation of findings and with clinical decision support regarding subsequent care.

SARS-CoV-2 test positivity rate in Reno, Nevada: association with PM2.5 during the 2020 wildfire smoke events in the western United States.

BACKGROUND: Air pollution has been linked to increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2. Thus, it has been suggested that wildfire smoke events may exacerbate the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to examine whether wildfire smoke from the 2020 wildfires in the western United States was associated with an increased rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Reno, Nevada. METHODS: We conducted a time-series analysis using generalized additive models to examine the relationship between the SARS-CoV-2 test positivity rate at a large regional hospital in Reno and ambient PM2.5 from 15 May to 20 Oct 2020. RESULTS: We found that a 10 µg/m3 increase in the 7-day average PM2.5 concentration was associated with a 6.3% relative increase in the SARS-CoV-2 test positivity rate, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 2.5 to 10.3%. This corresponded to an estimated 17.7% (CI: 14.4-20.1%) increase in the number of cases during the time period most affected by wildfire smoke, from 16 Aug to 10 Oct. SIGNIFICANCE: Wildfire smoke may have greatly increased the number of COVID-19 cases in Reno. Thus, our results substantiate the role of air pollution in exacerbating the pandemic and can help guide the development of public preparedness policies in areas affected by wildfire smoke, as wildfires are likely to coincide with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021.

Particulate matter and emergency visits for asthma: a time-series study of their association in the presence and absence of wildfire smoke in Reno, Nevada, 2013-2018.

BACKGROUND: Health risks due to particulate matter (PM) from wildfires may differ from risk due to PM from other sources. In places frequently subjected to wildfire smoke, such as Reno, Nevada, it is critical to determine whether wildfire PM poses unique risks. Our goal was to quantify the difference in the association of adverse asthma events with PM on days when wildfire smoke was present versus days when wildfire smoke was not present. METHODS: We obtained counts of visits for asthma at emergency departments and urgent care centers from a large regional healthcare system in Reno for the years 2013-2018. We also obtained dates when wildfire smoke was present from the Washoe County Health District Air Quality Management Division. We then examined whether the presence of wildfire smoke modified the association of PM2.5, PM10-2.5, and PM10 with asthma visits using generalized additive models. We improved on previous studies by excluding wildfire-smoke days where the PM concentration exceeded the maximum PM concentration on other days, thus accounting for possible nonlinearity in the association between PM concentration and asthma visits. RESULTS: Air quality was affected by wildfire smoke on 188 days between 2013 and 2018. We found that the presence of wildfire smoke increased the association of a 5 µg/m3 increase in daily and three-day averages of PM2.5 with asthma visits by 6.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1-10.3%) and 6.8% (CI: 1.2-12.7%), respectively. Similarly, the presence of wildfire smoke increased the association of a 5 µg/m3 increase in daily and three-day averages of PM10 with asthma visits by 5.5% (CI: 2.5-8.6%) and 7.2% (CI: 2.6-12.0%), respectively. We did not observe any significant increases in association for PM10-2.5 or for seven-day averages of PM2.5 and PM10. CONCLUSIONS: Since we found significantly stronger associations of PM2.5 and PM10 with asthma visits when wildfire smoke was present, our results suggest that wildfire PM is more hazardous than non-wildfire PM for patients with asthma.