Article Data

  • Views 1226
  • Dowloads 149

Original Research

Open Access

Effects of cancer type and sex on genetic testing for clinician recommendation and uptake

  • Emerson Delacroix1,2,*,
  • Erika N. Hanson3
  • Sarah Austin4
  • Grant Carr5
  • Kelley M. Kidwell5
  • Jennifer J. Griggs4,6
  • Elena Martinez Stoffel4
  • Lynette Hammond Gerido1
  • Sarah T. Hawley1,2,4
  • Elizabeth Bacon2
  • Ken Resnicow1,2

1Department of Health Behavior Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

2Rogel Cancer Center, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

3Department of Human Genetics, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

4Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

5Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

6Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

DOI: 10.22514/jomh.2023.126 Vol.19,Issue 12,December 2023 pp.23-30

Submitted: 04 July 2023 Accepted: 05 September 2023

Published: 30 December 2023

*Corresponding Author(s): Emerson Delacroix E-mail:


This study investigated reasons for lower-than-expected uptake of germline genetic testing compared to national guidelines amongst adult patients with cancer, self-reporting clinician recommendation for genetic testing. Cross-sectional survey of 596 patients with a personal history of cancer, responded about their cancer diagnosis, physician recommendation for and status of genetic testing and demographics. Adjusting for potential confounding factors (cancer type, education, income and insurance status) male sex significantly decreased odds of receiving a clinical recommendation for genetic testing (Odds Ratio: 0.06; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.04–0.10). Females, with a diagnosis of breast cancer, were more likely to receive a recommendation than other cancer types (64.8% vs. 90.9%, p < 0.001). Participants who received a physician recommendation were significantly more likely to receive genetic testing (p < 0.001). Clinician recommendation is an important driver of genetic testing, necessitating efforts to increase clinician recommendations, particularly for males and patients with cancers other than breast.


Adults; Cancer; Genetic testing; Genetic risk; Breast cancer; Prostate cancer; Adherence

Cite and Share

Emerson Delacroix,Erika N. Hanson,Sarah Austin,Grant Carr,Kelley M. Kidwell,Jennifer J. Griggs,Elena Martinez Stoffel,Lynette Hammond Gerido,Sarah T. Hawley,Elizabeth Bacon,Ken Resnicow. Effects of cancer type and sex on genetic testing for clinician recommendation and uptake. Journal of Men's Health. 2023. 19(12);23-30.


[1] Haverfield EV, Esplin ED, Aguilar SJ, Hatchell KE, Ormond KE, Hanson-Kahn A, et al. Correction to: physician-directed genetic screening to evaluate personal risk for medically actionable disorders: a large multi-center cohort study. BMC Medicine. 2021; 19: 288.

[2] Gornick MC, Ryan KA, Scherer AM, Scott Roberts J, De Vries RG, Uhlmann WR. Interpretations of the term “Actionable” when discussing genetic test results: what you mean is not what I heard. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2019; 28: 334–342.

[3] Hamilton JG, Symecko H, Spielman K, Breen K, Mueller R, Catchings A, et al. Uptake and acceptability of a mainstreaming model of hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. Genetics in Medicine. 2021; 23: 2105–2113.

[4] Bednar EM, Nitecki R, Krause KJ, Rauh-Hain JA. Interventions to improve delivery of cancer genetics services in the United States: a scoping review. Genetics in Medicine. 2022; 24: 1176–1186.

[5] Cragun D, Bonner D, Kim J, Akbari MR, Narod SA, Gomez-Fuego A, et al. Factors associated with genetic counseling and BRCA testing in a population-based sample of young Black women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2015; 151: 169–176.

[6] Shaw J, Bulsara C, Cohen PA, Gryta M, Nichols CB, Schofield L, et al. Investigating barriers to genetic counseling and germline mutation testing in women with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and Lynch syndrome. Patient Education and Counseling. 2018; 101: 938–944.

[7] Caswell-Jin JL, Zimmer AD, Stedden W, Kingham KE, Zhou AY, Kurian AW. Cascade genetic testing of relatives for hereditary cancer risk: results of an online initiative. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2019; 111: 95–98.

[8] Scott D, Friedman S, Telli ML, Kurian AW. Decision making about genetic testing among women with a personal and family history of breast cancer. JCO Oncology Practice. 2020; 16: e37–e55.

[9] Mendoza JA, Miller CA, Martin KJ, Resnicow K, Iachan R, Faseru B, et al. Examining the association of food insecurity and being up-to-date for breast and colorectal cancer screenings. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2022; 31: 1017–1025.

[10] Wang G, Beattie MS, Ponce NA, Phillips KA. Eligibility criteria in private and public coverage policies for BRCA genetic testing and genetic counseling. Genetics in Medicine. 2011; 13: 1045–1050.

[11] Lin GA, Trosman JR, Douglas MP, Weldon CB, Scheuner MT, Kurian A, et al. Influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2022; 31: 130–139.

[12] Muller C, Lee SM, Barge W, Siddique SM, Berera S, Wideroff G, et al. Low referral rate for genetic testing in racially and ethnically diverse patients despite universal colorectal cancer screening. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2018; 16: 1911–1918.e2.

[13] Huang M, Kamath P, Schlumbrecht M, Miao F, Driscoll D, Oldak S, et al. Identifying disparities in germline and somatic testing for ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2019; 153: 297–303.

[14] Lacour RA, Daniels MS, Westin SN, Meyer LA, Burke CC, Burns KA, et al. What women with ovarian cancer think and know about genetic testing. Gynecologic Oncology. 2008; 111: 132–136.

[15] Freedman RA, Kouri EM, West DW, Keating NL. Racial/ethnic disparities in knowledge about one’s breast cancer characteristics. Cancer. 2015; 121: 724–732.

[16] Douglas MP, Lin GA, Trosman JR, Phillips KA. Hereditary cancer panel testing challenges and solutions for the latinx community: costs, access, and variants. Journal of Community Genetics. 2022; 13: 75–80.

[17] Evaluation of Genomic Applications in P, Prevention Working G. Recommendations from the EGAPP working group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genetics in Medicine. 2009; 11: 35–41.

[18] Sharaf RN, Myer P, Stave CD, Diamond LC, Ladabaum U. Uptake of genetic testing by relatives of lynch syndrome probands: a systematic review. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2013; 11: 1093–1100.

[19] Katapodi MC, Northouse L, Pierce P, Milliron KJ, Liu G, Merajver SD. Differences between women who pursued genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and their at-risk relatives who did not. Oncology Nursing Forum. 2011; 38: 572–581.

[20] Greve V, Odom K, Pudner S, Lamb NE, Cooper SJ, East K. Characteristics and experiences of patients from a community-based and consumer-directed hereditary cancer population screening initiative. Human Genetics and Genomics Advances. 2022; 3: 100055.

[21] Mallen AR, Conley CC, Fuzzell L, Ketcher D, Augusto BM, McIntyre M, et al. “I think that a brief conversation from their provider can go a very long way”: patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators of genetic testing after ovarian cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2021; 29: 2663–2677.

[22] Vaimberg E, Demers L, Ford E, Sabatello M, Stevens B, Dasgupta S. Project inclusive genetics: exploring the impact of patient-centered counseling training on physical disability bias in the prenatal setting. PLOS ONE. 2021; 16: e0255722.

[23] Vysotskaia V, Kaseniit KE, Bucheit L, Ready K, Price K, Johansen Taber K. Clinical utility of hereditary cancer panel testing: Impact of PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C and RAD51D results on patient management and adherence to provider recommendations. Cancer. 2020; 126: 549–558.

[24] Halverson CME, Wessinger BC, Clayton EW, Wiesner GL. Patients’ willingness to reconsider cancer genetic testing after initially declining: mention it again. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2020; 29: 18–24.

[25] Krakow M, Ratcliff C, Hesse B, Greenberg-Worisek A. Assessing genetic literacy awareness and knowledge gaps in the us population: results from the health information national trends survey. Public Health Genomics. 2017; 20: 343–348.

[26] Ladd MK, Peshkin BN, Isaacs C, Hooker G, Willey S, Valdimarsdottir H, et al. Predictors of genetic testing uptake in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2020; 122: 134–143.

[27] Giri VN, Walker A, Gross L, Trabulsi EJ, Lallas CD, Kelly WK, et al. Helix: a digital tool to address provider needs for prostate cancer genetic testing in clinical practice. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. 2022; 20: e104–e113.

[28] Loeb S, Li R, Sanchez Nolasco T, Byrne N, Cheng HH, Becker D, et al. Barriers and facilitators of germline genetic evaluation for prostate cancer. The Prostate. 2021; 81: 754–764.

[29] Gupta S, Provenzale D, Llor X, Halverson AL, Grady W, Chung DC, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: colorectal, version 2.2019. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2019; 17: 1032–1041.

[30] Daly MB, Pilarski R, Yurgelun MB, Berry MP, Buys SS, Dickson P, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic, version 1.2020. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2020; 18: 380–391.

[31] Duenas DM, Shipman KJ, Porter KM, Shuster E, Guerra C, Reyes A, et al. Motivations and concerns of patients considering participation in an implementation study of a hereditary cancer risk assessment program in diverse primary care settings. Genetics in Medicine. 2022; 24: 610–621.

[32] Hurst JH. Pioneering geneticist mary-claire king receives the 2014 Lasker~Koshland special achievement award in medical science. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2014; 124: 4148–4151.

[33] Boland CR, Lynch HT. The history of lynch syndrome. Familial Cancer. 2013; 12: 145–157.

[34] Hann KEJ, Freeman M, Fraser L, Waller J, Sanderson SC, Rahman B, et al. Awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards genetic testing for cancer risk among ethnic minority groups: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2017; 17: 503.

[35] Wing SE, Hu H, Lopez L, Solomon I, Shen J, Raquel C, et al. Recall of genomic testing results among patients with cancer. The Oncologist. 2021; 26: e2302–e2305.

[36] Jacobs C, Dancyger C, Smith JA, Michie S. Accuracy of recall of information about a cancer-predisposing BRCA1/2 gene mutation among patients and relatives. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2015; 23: 147–151.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,200 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) DOAJ is a unique and extensive index of diverse open access journals from around the world, driven by a growing community, committed to ensuring quality content is freely available online for everyone.

SCImago The SCImago Journal & Country Rank is a publicly available portal that includes the journals and country scientific indicators developed from the information contained in the Scopus® database (Elsevier B.V.)

Publication Forum - JUFO (Federation of Finnish Learned Societies) Publication Forum is a classification of publication channels created by the Finnish scientific community to support the quality assessment of academic research.

Scopus: CiteScore 0.9 (2023) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers Search for publication channels (journals, series and publishers) in the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers to see if they are considered as scientific. (

Submission Turnaround Time