Background Only a small proportion of patients who qualify for clinical genetic testing for cancer susceptibility get testing. Many patient‐level barriers contribute to low uptake. In this study, we examined self‐reported patient barriers and motivators for cancer genetic testing. Methods A survey comprised of both new and existing measures related to barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to patients with a diagnosis of cancer at a large academic medical center. Patients who self‐reported receiving a genetic test were included in these analyses ( n = 376). Responses about emotions following testing as well as barriers and motivators prior to getting testing were examined. Group differences in barriers and motivators by patient demographic characteristics were examined. Results Being assigned female at birth was associated with increased emotional, insurance, and family concerns as well as increased health benefits compared to patients assigned male at birth. Younger respondents had significantly higher emotional and family concerns compared to older respondents. Recently diagnosed respondents expressed fewer concerns about insurance implications and emotional concerns. Those with a BRCA‐related cancer had higher scores on social and interpersonal concerns scale than those with other cancers. Participants with higher depression scores indicated increased emotional, social and interpersonal, and family concerns. Conclusions Self‐reported depression emerged as the most consistent factor influencing report of barriers to genetic testing. By incorporating mental health resources into clinical practice, oncologists may better identify those patients who might need more assistance following through with a referral for genetic testing and the response afterwards.

At least ve years of adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) is recommended for patients with hormone receptor-positive invasive breast cancer to reduce cancer recurrence risk. Up to half of patients prematurely discontinue ET, often due to musculoskeletal pain. Nociplastic pain is abnormal central nervous system pain processing without evidence of tissue or neuronal damage. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between baseline nociplastic pain and ET discontinuation. MethodsThis was a retrospective, single center, cohort study. Included patients were female, had stage 0-III invasive breast cancer, did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, and completed quality of life questionnaires prior to breast surgery, including Fibromyalgia Survey for nociplastic pain. Clinical data including duration of ET were abstracted from the medical record. Patient characteristics were analyzed with t-tests and chisquared tests, as appropriate. Univariate and multivariable regressions were performed with Cox proportional hazard models. Results681 patients diagnosed between 2012-2019 met inclusion criteria; 480 initiated ET and were included in the analysis. Of these 480 patients, 203 (42.3%) prematurely discontinued initial ET therapy. On univariate analysis, tamoxifen use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, p = 0.021) and premenopausal status (HR 0.73, p = 0.04) were inversely associated with ET discontinuation, while Fibromyalgia Score was positively associated (HR 1.04, p = 0.043). On multivariable analysis, baseline Fibromyalgia Score remained associated with ET discontinuation. ConclusionNociplastic pain present prior to surgery was associated with premature ET discontinuation. Fibromyalgia Score screening may be useful for evaluating ET discontinuation risk. Treatments targeting nociplastic pain may be more effective for treating ET-emergent pain.

Purpose At least five years of adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) is recommended for patients with hormone receptor-positive invasive breast cancer to reduce cancer recurrence risk. Up to half of patients prematurely discontinue ET, often due to musculoskeletal pain. Nociplastic pain is abnormal central nervous system pain processing without evidence of tissue or neuronal damage. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between baseline nociplastic pain and ET discontinuation. Methods This was a retrospective, single center, cohort study. Included patients were female, had stage 0-III invasive breast cancer, did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, and completed quality of life questionnaires prior to breast surgery, including Fibromyalgia Survey for nociplastic pain. Clinical data including duration of ET were abstracted from the medical record. Patient characteristics were analyzed with t-tests and chi-squared tests, as appropriate. Univariate and multivariable regressions were performed with Cox proportional hazard models. Results 681 patients diagnosed between 2012–2019 met inclusion criteria; 480 initiated ET and were included in the analysis. Of these 480 patients, 203 (42.3%) prematurely discontinued initial ET therapy. On univariate analysis, tamoxifen use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, p = 0.021) and premenopausal status (HR 0.73, p = 0.04) were inversely associated with ET discontinuation, while Fibromyalgia Score was positively associated (HR 1.04, p = 0.043). On multivariable analysis, baseline Fibromyalgia Score remained associated with ET discontinuation. Conclusion Nociplastic pain present prior to surgery was associated with premature ET discontinuation. Fibromyalgia Score screening may be useful for evaluating ET discontinuation risk. Treatments targeting nociplastic pain may be more effective for treating ET-emergent pain.

10601 Background: This pilot study was conducted to elucidate the barriers and drivers for genetic testing by combining validated measures to inform the content of a clinical trial aimed at increasing uptake of clinically appropriate genetic testing amongst individuals with a personal history of cancer. Previous research shows that the rate of recommendation of genetic testing varies among Healthcare Providers (HCPs) despite national guidelines. Here we evaluate the rate and effect of HCP recommendation on the uptake of clinical cancer genetic testing. Methods: Data for these analyses were obtained from a cross-sectional survey completed by 794 adults (> 18 years) who were diagnosed with cancer in the past 10 years and were seen at an academic medical center within the past two years. Statistical analysis includes logistic regression and crosstabulation with SPSS and R statistical software. Results: Provider recommendation of genetic testing was found to be a very strong indicator of receiving genetic testing across all cancer types (OR = 146.4, p = <.001). HCPs more frequently recommended genetic testing to females (OR = 12.5, p = <.001), younger patients (OR = 1.05, p = <.001). While females are more likely to receive a recommendation, there were no significant differences on genetic testing uptake when a HCP recommended it for any gender. Conclusions: Without the recommendation of their provider, patients were significantly less likely to receive genetic testing that could affect their cancer treatment, surveillance, or family members. More aggressive patient health education is needed in cancer affected patients to decrease knowledge deficits and increase motivation for cancer genetic testing uptake. Education to providers regarding genetic testing recommendation guidelines could increase motivation to refer patients for genetic testing and counseling.

10591 Background: Genetic testing allows patients and their families to identify hereditary cancer syndromes. Financial barriers to genetic testing are a major concern for patients offered genetic risk assessment. The cost of germline genetic testing has decreased substantially over the last several years. It is not clear, however, that oncologists are knowledgeable about the cost of genetic testing. The purpose of this study was to investigate oncologists’ knowledge of genetic testing costs. Methods: We deployed a survey to all oncologists who are members of the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium, a physician-led quality improvement collaborative whose members represent 95% of the oncologists in Michigan. The modified Dillman method was used to achieve the maximum response rate. Responses were collected from December 2020 through May 2021. The responses to the question, “If a patient were to ask you how much it would cost for them to have clinical genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, what would you tell them?” were independently coded by three investigators into one of three categories – correct and helpful, correct and not helpful, or incorrect and not helpful. We investigated associations between the number of years in practice and how important was cost as a barrier to genetic risk assessment. Results: The response rate to the survey was 61.2% (194/317). Only 25% of respondents provided an answer that was deemed to be both correct and helpful to a patient, for example “approximately $250 if out of pocket.” Nearly 40% of respondents gave an answer that was correct but was non-specific and would not help a patient decide about pursuing genetic testing. This category included responses such as deferring to a genetic counselor or that cost varies based on insurance. About 28% gave an incorrect response, such as “several thousand dollars” or responded, “I don’t know.” No associations were found between cost response category, number of years in practice, or reported responses that financial barriers play a role in referral patterns. Conclusions: The majority of oncologists in our statewide sample do not have an accurate understanding of the cost of germline genetic testing. Lack of precise information about the costs of testing may lead patients to believe that genetic testing is either not important or not within reach. Furthermore, providing incorrect information can have a downstream effect and prevent patients and their families from pursuing genetic counseling. Improving oncologists’ knowledge about the cost of testing may decrease barriers to uptake of genetic risk assessment. [Table: see text]