Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Disparities in BRCA counseling across providers in a diverse population of young breast cancer survivors



All women diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) ≤age 50 should be referred for genetic counseling (GC) and testing. We sought to compare differences in provider practices and access across a racially and ethnically diverse population of young BC survivors.


A registry-based sample of women diagnosed with invasive BC ≤age 50 from 2009 to 2012 was recruited through the Florida Cancer Registry, and completed a questionnaire and medical record release. Differences were compared across those tested with or without the involvement of a board-certified or credentialed genetics health professional (GHP) in (1) clinical and demographic variables and (2) pretest GC elements.


Of 1622 participants, there were 440 Blacks, 285 Hispanics, and 897 Non-Hispanic Whites. Of 831 participants with medical record verification of testing provider, 170 (20%) had documentation of GHP involvement. Among the 613 who recalled a pretest discussion and had GC elements collected, those with GHP involvement were significantly more likely to recall the seven recognized GC elements.


GHP involvement was associated with adherence to nationally recommended best practices. With the expanding importance of identifying inherited cancers, it is critical to ensure equitable access to best practices across all populations.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer Clin J. 2018;68:394–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Felix GES, Zheng Y, Olopade OI. Mutations in context: implications of BRCA testing in diverse populations. Fam Cancer. 2018;17:471–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Yedjou CG, Sims JN, Miele L, et al. Health and racial disparity in breast cancer. In: Ahmad A, editor. Breast cancer metastasis and drug resistance: challenges and progress. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2019. p. 31–49.

  4. 4.

    Metcalfe K, Gershman S, Lynch HT, et al. Predictors of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:1384–1392.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Pierce LJ, Phillips K-A, Griffith KA, et al. Local therapy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with operable breast cancer: comparison of breast conservation and mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;121:389–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Menes TS, Terry MB, Goldgar D, et al. Second primary breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: 10-year cumulative incidence in the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;151:653–660.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Malone KE, Begg CB, Haile RW, et al. Population-based study of the risk of second primary contralateral breast cancer associated with carrying a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2404–2410.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Salhab M, Bismohun S, Mokbel K. Risk-reducing strategies for women carrying BRCA1/2 mutations with a focus on prophylactic surgery. BMC Womens Health. 2010;10:28–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Warner E. Screening BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers for breast cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2018;10:477.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Carbine NE, Lostumbo L, Wallace J, Ko H. Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4:CD002748–CD002748.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian and pancreatic. (Version1.2020). Accessed 5 December 2019.

  12. 12.

    Riley BD, Culver JO, Skrzynia C, et al. Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling, and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns. 2012;21:151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Robson ME, Bradbury AR, Arun B, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3660–3667.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Penon-Portmann M, Chang J, Cheng M, Shieh JT. Genetics workforce: distribution of genetics services and challenges to health care in California. Genet Med. 2019;22:227–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Bookman T. More people seek genetic testing, but there aren’t enough counselors. Accessed 11 October 2016.

  16. 16.

    Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational employment statistics: occupational employment and wages, May 2016. 29-9092 Genetic counselors. Accessed 1 Nov 2019.

  17. 17.

    Villegas C, Haga SB. Access to genetic counselors in the Southern United States. J Pers Med. 2019;9:E33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hoskovec JM, Bennett RL, Carey ME, et al. Projecting the supply and demand for certified genetic counselors: a workforce study. J Genet Couns. 2018;27:16–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Acheson LS, Stange KC, Zyzanski S. Clinical genetics issues encountered by family physicians. Genet Med. 2005;7:501–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Vig HS, Armstrong J, Egleston BL, et al. Cancer genetic risk assessment and referral patterns in primary care. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2009;13:735–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Radford C, Prince A, Lewis K, Pal T. Factors which impact the delivery of genetic risk assessment services focused on inherited cancer genomics: expanding the role and reach of certified genetics professionals. J Genet Couns. 2014;23:522–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Whitworth P, Beitsch P, Arnell C, et al. Impact of payer constraints on access to genetic testing. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13:e47–e56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Stenehjem DD, Au T, Sainski AM, et al. Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Cragun D, Camperlengo L, Robinson E, et al. Differences in BRCA counseling and testing practices based on ordering provider type. Genet Med. 2015;17:51–57.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Pal T, Rocchio E, Garcia A, Rivers D, Vadaparampil S. Recruitment of black women for a study of inherited breast cancer using a cancer registry–based approach. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2010;15:69–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Bonner D, Pal T, Tallo C, Vadaparampil ST. Abstract A33: the utility of a state-wide cancer registry in recruiting a clinically representative population-based sample of young black women diagnosed with early-onset breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21 Suppl 10:A33–A33.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Cragun D, Weidner A, Lewis C, et al. Racial disparities in BRCA testing and cancer risk management across a population-based sample of young breast cancer survivors. Cancer. 2017;123:2497–2505.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kurian AW, Li Y, Hamilton AS, et al. Gaps in incorporating germline genetic testing into treatment decision-making for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2232–2239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Pal T, Radford C, Weidner A, Tezak AL, Cragun D, Wiesner GL. The Inherited Cancer Registry (ICARE) initiative: an academic-community partnership for patients and providers. Oncol Issues. 2018;33:54–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bellcross CA, Leadbetter S, Alford SH, Peipins LA. Prevalence and healthcare actions of women in a large health system with a family history meeting the 2005 USPSTF recommendation for BRCA genetic counseling referral. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22:728–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hall M, Olopade OI. Confronting genetic testing disparities: knowledge is power. JAMA. 2005;293:1783–1785.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Levy DE, Byfield SD, Comstock CB, et al. Underutilization of BRCA1/2 testing to guide breast cancer treatment: Black and Hispanic women particularly at risk. Genet Med. 2011;13:349–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    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;36:1218–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Hull LE, Haas JS, Simon SR. Provider discussions of genetic tests with U.S. women at risk for a BRCA mutation. Am J Prev Med. 2018;54:221–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Cigna. Genetic testing and counseling resources. 2016.

  36. 36.

    Scott D, Friedman S, Telli ML, Kurian AW. Decision making about genetic testing among women with a personal and family history of breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Oct 15; doi:10.1200/JOP.19.00221 [Epub ahead of print].

  37. 37.

    Barcenas CH, Shafaee MN, Sinha AK, et al. Genetic counseling referral rates in long-term survivors of triple-negative breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16:518–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Armstrong K, Micco E, Carney A, Stopfer J, Putt M. Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. JAMA. 2005;293:1729–1736.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Robson M, Im S-A, Senkus E, et al. Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:523–533.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    US Preventive Services Task Force. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2019;322:652–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was supported by grants from the Bankhead Coley granting agency (4BB15 and IBG10–34199) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) (R01 CA204819), and in part by the Ingram Professorship, the Kleberg Foundation, and by Vanderbilt Genetic Institute departmental funds (T.P.). Support for S.R.’s time was provided by a NCI T32 training grant awarded to Vanderbilt University (T32 CA160056).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuya Pal MD.

Ethics declarations


The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reid, S., Cragun, D., Tezak, A. et al. Disparities in BRCA counseling across providers in a diverse population of young breast cancer survivors. Genet Med 22, 1088–1093 (2020).

Download citation


  • hereditary breast cancer
  • genetic testing
  • genetic counseling
  • genetics health professional

Further reading


Quick links