The study aim was to evaluate the association between genetics referrals, training in medical school, residency, or continuing medical education and physician knowledge of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). A survey of 55 questions was administered to 140 physicians evaluating knowledge and practice patterns regarding HBOC. Physicians with genetics training during residency were more likely to recognize that most instances of ovarian cancer are not hereditary (odds ratio (OR) = 3.16; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.32, 7.58). Physicians with continuing medical education (CME) training on genetics were more likely to identify that screening can be improved for those with a hereditary mutation (OR = 4.28; 95 % CI 1.32, 13.90). Primary care physicians who frequently referred for genetics were more likely to recognize that maternal history is not more important than paternal history (OR = 2.51; 95 % CI 1.11, 5.66), that screening can be improved for those with hereditary risk (OR = 4.06; 95 % CI 1.08, 15.22), and that females with a hereditary breast cancer risk would have different recommendations for screening than someone without this risk (OR = 4.91; 95 % CI 1.04, 23.25). Our data suggest that training and frequency of genetics referrals may be associated with knowledge of general risk assessment for HBOC.

Background: Knowledge about hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) can aid cancer screening and prevention in high-risk patients. Genetic testing, once conducted primarily at academic centers, is now routinely performed in a variety of clinics. Nonacademic physicians may not be aware of hereditary CRC standards of care. Methods: From August to November 2012, a survey was administered to predominantly primary care physicians evaluating academic center affiliation, past training in genetics and knowledge regarding hereditary CRC. Results: One hundred forty physicians completed the survey. Knowledge of hereditary CRC was neither associated with academic affiliation nor with training during medical school or residency, but with continuing medical education (CME) training. Those with CME training were more likely to know that screening could be enhanced for patients with a hereditary cancer risk (OR = 4.49, 95% CI = 1.40-14.38) and that an individual with hereditary CRC would have different screening recommendations (OR = 7.49, 95% CI = 1.37-40.81). Residency training and CME training were associated with more frequent hereditary risk assessment. Conclusion: Genetics training may be associated with physicians' knowledge and assessment of hereditary CRC. Training at the CME level in particular may be integral to the delivery of genetic services in clinical practice.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the gold standard in hereditary cancer risk assessment, screening, and treatment. A minority of physicians follow NCCN guidelines for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. This study assesses the impact of an interventional educational program on HBOC in terms of knowledge. Physicians were sent an invite to join either an intervention survey (web-training offered prior to the knowledge survey) or control survey (web-training offered after the knowledge survey). Sixty-nine physicians in the intervention arm and 67 physicians in the control arm completed the survey. The interventional group regularly answered items correctly at a higher frequency than the control group. For example, 64.71% (n = 44) of physicians in the intervention group knew that multi-gene testing does not have to include only highly penetrant genes compared to 32.84% (n = 22) of the control group (p < 0.01). Similar results were seen with other specific survey items. The current study is important in that it shows web-based education to be a feasible and effective modality for training on hereditary breast cancer. This type of education may be incorporated into CME programs and can be used as a foundation for further studies as well.

No abstract

Purpose: To attract medical students (MS) to primary care, administrators must understand what impacts students to select a certain area of medicine. This study elucidates these influences and how they change throughout four years. Methods:A survey was administered to first-year (Group-I) and fourth-year (Group-II) MS at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYIT-COM). Questions sought to understand what factors influence student's residency choice.Results: There were 258 respondents, 184 responses (71.0%) were from Group-I and 75 (29.0%) were from Group-II. Academic performance and board scores had a greater impact on career choice for Group-I (83.2%) than Group-II (13.3%). Perceived status among colleagues had a greater negative influence on Group-II (13.7 %) than Group-I (2.90 %). Opportunity to care for patients and their families had an increased negative influence on Group-II (11.1%) than Group-I (0.6 %). Conclusions:Upon entering medical school, academic performance had a greater influence on residency choice than it did 4th year after exams were completed. Compared to 1st year MS, the ability to care for patients and families, with perceived status among colleagues is a deterring factor to 4th year MS choice of residency.