Assessment of efficacy of hereditary cancer didactic training program for advanced practice providers in the community oncology setting.

Abstract

e13546 Background: Many professional organizations, including ASCO, recommend evaluation of personal and family history of cancer and, when applicable, germline genetic testing as part of comprehensive oncology care (Tung et al, 2024). Additionally, the number of patients qualifying for germline genetic testing based on diagnosis continues to increase. Despite this, standardization of genetics education for oncology care providers, including medical oncologists and advanced practice providers (APPs, consisting of nurse practitioners and physician assistants) is lacking. The Texas Oncology (TXO) genetics program aims to provide this education to our oncology providers. Methods: Since 2012, TXO genetic counselors have provided individualized hereditary cancer education through didactic and clinical training. To support growth and ensure consistency, a standardized program was developed based on NCCN, ASCO, and NSGC core competencies. The CME-accredited program includes over 20 hours of video content organized into 10 topic blocks and weekly 90-minute live sessions for 10–11 weeks to reinforce concepts and apply them clinically. Participants completed a multiple-choice test before training to assess baseline knowledge and repeated the test after training to earn CME. Test results informed revisions of recorded content and live sessions for future trainees. Results: 38 APPs have completed the hereditary cancer education course (18 in fall 2024, 8 in spring 2025, 12 in fall 2025). The post-training test average scores across the 3 groups improved from the pre-training test (Table 1). There is consistency in questions missed across all 3 groups, indicating a gap in teaching and provider knowledge. Conclusions: The overall improvement in post-training test scores indicates that the didactic training provided increases genetics knowledge in 37/38 (97.4%) of providers that completed training. Topics that showed most improvement in understanding included inheritance, use of microsatellite instability and immunohistochemistry testing, management of patients with a hereditary cancer syndrome and pedigree assessment. The topics that did not show overall improvement of understanding included use of somatic test results to guide germline testing and use of breast cancer risk assessment models for personalized management. In the fall 2024 and fall 2025 groups, at least 25% of participants (fall 2024: 5 of 18 participants, fall 2025: 3 of 12 participants) had a post-training test score under 75%. This deserves further exploration into training group size and targeted training based on missed concepts. Training Group Pre-Training Test(% correct) Post-Training Test(% correct) Fall 2024 (n=18) 57.6% (43.3% - 74.6%) 79.3% (56.7% - 95.5%) Spring 2025 (n=8) 56.3% (42.0% - 68.1%) 80.1% (75.3%-89.8%) Fall 2025 (n=12) 58.8% (42.0% - 95.7%) 83.8% (68.1% - 92.8%)