Genetic counseling referral for ovarian cancer patients: a call to action

Predictors of germline genetic testing referral and completion in ovarian cancer patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

OBJECTIVES

To identify predictors of referral and completion of germline genetic testing among newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients, with a focus on geographic social deprivation, oncologist-level practices, and time between diagnosis and completion of testing.

METHODS

Clinical and sociodemographic data were abstracted from medical records of patients newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2014 and 2019 in the University of North Carolina Health System. Factors associated with referral for genetic counseling, completion of germline testing, and time between diagnosis and test results were identified using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

307/459 (67%) patients were referred for genetic counseling and 285/459 (62%) completed testing. The predicted probability of test completion was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88) for patients with a referral compared to 0.27 (95% CI: 0.18-0.35) for patients without a referral. The predicted probability of referral was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69-0.82) for patients at the 25th percentile of ZIP code-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI) and 0.67 (0.60-0.74) for patients at the 75th percentile of SDI. Referral varied by oncologist, with predicted probabilities ranging from 0.47 (95% CI: 0.32-0.62) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00) across oncologists. The median time between diagnosis and test results was 137 days (IQR: 55-248 days). This interval decreased by a predicted 24.46 days per year (95% CI: 37.75-11.16).

CONCLUSIONS

We report relatively high germline testing and a promising trend in time from diagnosis to results, with variation by oncologist and patient factors. Automated referral, remote genetic counseling and sample collection, reduced out-of-pocket costs, and educational interventions should be explored.

Temporal Patterns and Adoption of Germline and Somatic BRCA Testing in Ovarian Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe the testing rate, patient characteristics, temporal trends, timing, and results of germline and somatic BRCA testing in patients with ovarian cancer using real-world data.

METHODS

We included a cross-sectional subset of adult patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer between January 1, 2011, and November 30, 2018, who received frontline treatment and were followed for at least 1 year in a real-world database. The primary outcome was receipt of BRCA testing, classified by biosample source as germline (blood or saliva) or somatic (tissue). Lines of therapy (frontline, second line, third line) were derived based on dates of surgery and chemotherapy. Descriptive statistics were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 2,557 patients, 72.2% (n=1,846) had at least one documented BRCA test. Among tested patients, 62.5% (n=1,154) had only germline testing, 10.6% (n=197) had only somatic testing, and 19.9% (n=368) had both. Most patients had testing before (9.7%, n=276) or during (48.6%, n=1,521) frontline therapy, with 17.6% (n=273) tested during second-line and 12.7% (n=129) tested during third-line therapy. Patients who received BRCA testing, compared with patients without testing, were younger (mean age 63 years vs 66 years, P <.001) and were more likely to be treated at an academic practice (10.4% vs 7.0%, P =.01), with differences by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ( P <.001), stage of disease ( P <.001), histology ( P <.001), geography ( P <.001), and type of frontline therapy ( P <.001), but no differences based on race or ethnicity. The proportion of patients who received BRCA testing within 1 year of diagnosis increased from 24.6% of patients in 2011 to 75.6% of patients in 2018.

CONCLUSION

In a large cohort of patients with ovarian cancer, significant practice disparities existed in testing for actionable BRCA mutations. Despite increased testing over time, many patients did not receive testing, suggesting missed opportunities to identify patients appropriate for targeted therapy and genetic counseling.

Evaluation of barriers to referral for cancer predisposition syndromes in pediatric oncology patients in the United States

Cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) are underdiagnosed in the pediatric population, though the diagnosis of a CPS has important implications for the child and their family. CPS are often diagnosed by geneticists or oncologists with expertise in CPS following a malignancy. This requires a member of the care team, most commonly, the treating oncologist to suspect a CPS and refer the patient for CPS assessment. An online survey was distributed to members of the Children's Oncology Group to elucidate current referral practices and barriers to referral for patients suspected to have a CPS. Of the 183 respondents, 86.1% was pediatric oncologists and most (68.5%) used formal guidelines to aid in assessment. Most respondents indicated they would rarely refer patients with tumors highly associated with CPS for genetic assessment. Participants were more likely to refer patients with malignancy and additional features of a CPS than for a specific type of cancer, despite the use of guidelines. Parent knowledge of family history was considered the most challenging barrier to obtaining a family history, though a thorough pedigree was not consistently elicited. Providers indicated the most significant barrier to referral for CPS assessment was priority given the patient's immediate care needs. Identification of these barriers provides direction to focus efforts to increase referrals. Provider education about CPS, clear referral guidelines, and implementation of or increased collaboration with a genetic counselor in the pediatric oncology clinic may encourage CPS assessment and enable oncologists to focus on the patient's immediate care needs.

Retrospective assessment of barriers and access to genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes in an integrated health care delivery system

Background

A critical step in access to genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes is referral for genetic counseling to assess personal and family risk. Individuals meeting testing guidelines have the greatest need to be evaluated. However, referrals to genetics are underutilized in US patients with hereditary cancer syndromes, especially within traditionally underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income, and non-English speaking patients.

Methods

We studied existing processes for referral to genetic evaluation and testing for hereditary cancer risk to identify areas of potential improvement in delivering these services, especially for traditionally underserved patients.

We conducted a retrospective review of 820 referrals to the Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) genetics department containing diagnosis codes for hereditary cancer risk. We classified referrals as high- or low-quality based on whether sufficient information was provided to determine if patients met national practice guidelines for testing. Through chart abstraction, we also assessed consistency with practice guidelines, whether the referral resulted in a visit to the genetics department for evaluation, and clinical characteristics of patients receiving genetic testing.

Results

Most referrals (n = 514, 63%) contained sufficient information to assess the appropriateness of referral; of those, 92% met practice guidelines for genetic testing. Half of referred patients (50%) were not offered genetic evaluation; only 31% received genetic testing. We identified several barriers to receiving genetic evaluation and testing, the biggest barrier being completion of a family history form sent to patients following the referral. Those with a referral consistent with testing guidelines, were more likely to receive genetic testing than those without (39% vs. 29%, respectively; p = 0.0058). Traditionally underserved patients were underrepresented in those receiving genetic evaluation and testing relative to the overall adult KPNW population.

Conclusions

Process improvements are needed to increase access to genetic services to diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes prior to development of cancer.

Achieving universal genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer: Are we there yet? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services.

METHODS

We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.

Mutation Rates in Cancer Susceptibility Genes in Patients With Breast Cancer With Multiple Primary Cancers

PURPOSE

Women with breast cancer have a 4%-16% lifetime risk of a second primary cancer. Whether mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are enriched in patients with breast and another primary cancer over those with a single breast cancer (S-BC) is unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified pathogenic germline mutations in 17 cancer susceptibility genes in patients with BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer in 2 different cohorts: cohort 1, high-risk breast cancer program (multiple primary breast cancer [MP-BC], n = 551; S-BC, n = 449) and cohort 2, familial breast cancer research study (MP-BC, n = 340; S-BC, n = 1,464). Mutation rates in these 2 cohorts were compared with a control data set (Exome Aggregation Consortium [ExAC]).

RESULTS

Overall, pathogenic mutation rates for autosomal, dominantly inherited genes were higher in patients with MP-BC versus S-BC in both cohorts (8.5% v 4.9% [P = .02] and 7.1% v 4.2% [P = .03]). There were differences in individual gene mutation rates between cohorts. In both cohorts, younger age at first breast cancer was associated with higher mutation rates; the age of non-breast cancers was unrelated to mutation rate. TP53 and MSH6 mutations were significantly enriched in patients with MP-BC but not S-BC, whereas ATM and PALB2 mutations were significantly enriched in both groups compared with ExAC.

CONCLUSION

Mutation rates are at least 7% in all patients with BRCA1/2 mutation-negative MP-BC, regardless of age at diagnosis of breast cancer, with mutation rates up to 25% in patients with a first breast cancer diagnosed at age < 30 years. Our results suggest that all patients with breast cancer with a second primary cancer, regardless of age of onset, should undergo multigene panel testing.

HOXB4 promotes the malignant progression of ovarian cancer via DHDDS

Background

Homeobox B4 (HOXB4) is correlated with poor prognosis of various cancer types. However, how HOXB4 promotes ovarian cancer (OV) progression remains unclear.

Methods

The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database indicated that a high level of HOXB4 in OV was correlated with poor prognosis. The biological functions of HOXB4 were confirmed by colony formation, migration, and invasion assays. The effect of HOXB4 on the expression of EMT cell markers was determined. The transcriptional target of HOXB4 was DHDDS, which was detected by a ChIP assay. A xenograft tumor model was generated in nude mice to detect the role of HOXB4 in tumor proliferation and metastasis.

Results

The results showed that HOXB4 protein levels were higher in OV tissues than in normal tissues and correlated with poor prognosis of OV. HOXB4 reduction inhibited the proliferation and invasion ability of OV cells in vitro. Conversely, these effects were enhanced by the upregulation of HOXB4 in OV cells. The binding of HOXB4 to two DNA motifs regulated DHDDS expression and contributed to the malignant progression of OV. The role of HOXB4 in contributing to tumor development in vivo was verified in mice. Further results indicated that HOXB4 induced Snail and Zeb1 expression.

Conclusion

Overall, HOXB4 overexpression was remarkably correlated with poor prognosis of OV. Mechanistically, HOXB4 enhances the proliferation and invasion of tumor cells by activating DHDDS, thereby promoting the malignant progression of OV.