Differences in referral patterns based on race for women at high-risk for ovarian cancer in the southeast: Results from a Gynecologic Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic

Intersectionality, BRCA Genetic Testing, and Intrafamilial Communication of Risk: A Qualitative Study

Significant health disparities exist in relation to pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2. This study aimed to better understand the barriers and facilitators to BRCA1/2 genetic testing and intrafamilial communication of risk in racially and ethnically diverse individuals. We conducted qualitative interviews with non-Hispanic White (n = 11) and Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) individuals (n = 14) who underwent testing for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants. We employed template analysis, case study analysis, and comparative case study analysis to examine healthcare experiences related to genetic testing as well as intrafamilial communication of risk. Applying an intersectional lens, we sought to inform more person-centered approaches to precision healthcare and help dismantle disparities in genomic healthcare. Template analysis revealed salient factors at the individual (psychosocial well-being), interpersonal/familial, and healthcare system levels. A two-part case study analysis provided insights into how race/ethnicity, cultural norms, and socioeconomic status interact with systemic and structural inequities to compound disparities. These findings underscore the need for person-centered, tailored, and culturally sensitive approaches to understanding and addressing the complexities surrounding testing and the communication of BRCA risk. Applying an intersectional lens can inform more person-centered approaches to precision healthcare and may help to surmount existing disparities.

Nanotechnological approaches for diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer: a review of recent trends

Formulations from nanotechnology platform promote therapeutic drug delivery and offer various advantages such as biocompatibility, non-inflammatory effects, high therapeutic output, biodegradability, non-toxicity, and biocompatibility in comparison with free drug delivery. Due to inherent shortcomings of conventional drug delivery to cancerous tissues, alternative nanotechnological-based approaches have been developed for such ailments. Ovarian cancer is the leading gynecological cancer with higher mortality rates due to its reoccurrence and late diagnosis. In recent years, the field of medical nanotechnology has witnessed significant progress in addressing existing problems and improving the diagnosis and therapy of various diseases including cancer. Nevertheless, the literature and current reviews on nanotechnology are mainly focused on its applications in other cancers or diseases. In this review, we focused on the nanoscale drug delivery systems for ovarian cancer targeted therapy and diagnosis, and different nanocarriers systems including dendrimers, nanoparticles, liposomes, nanocapsules, and nanomicelles for ovarian cancer have been discussed. In comparison to non-functionalized counterparts of nanoformulations, the therapeutic potential and preferential targeting of ovarian cancer through ligand functionalized nanoformulations’ development has been reviewed. Furthermore, numerous biomarkers such as prostatic, mucin 1, CA-125, apoptosis repeat baculoviral inhibitor-5, human epididymis protein-4, and e-cadherin have been identified and elucidated in this review for the assessment of ovarian cancer. Nanomaterial biosensor-based tumor markers and their various types for ovarian cancer diagnosis are explained in this article. In association, different nanocarrier approaches for the ovarian cancer therapy have also been underpinned. To ensure ovarian cancer control and efficient detection, there is an urgent need for faster and less costly medical tools in the arena of oncology.

Integrating hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic counselling and testing into mainstream clinical practice: Legal and ethical challenges

Health professionals not specialized in genetics are expected to take an increasing role in genetic services delivery. This article aims to identify legal and ethical challenges related to a collaborative oncogenetics service model, where non-genetic health professionals provide genetic services to patients. Through a scoping literature review, we identified issues to the provision of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or other hereditary adult cancers, genetic testing under this model. Concerns that arose in the literature were informed consent, lack of adherence to best practice guidelines, lack of education of non-genetic health professionals on the provision of genetic services, psychological impacts of genetic testing, continuity of care, the complexity of genetic test results, confidentiality, risks of medical mismanagement, and the associated medical responsibility liabilities. Despite these challenges, there is a growing consensus towards the feasibility of cancer genetic testing being undertaken by non-genetic healthcare professionals in a collaborative oncogenetics service model.

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.

Nanotechnology in ovarian cancer: Diagnosis and treatment

To overcome the drawbacks of conventional delivery, this review spotlights a number of nanoscale drug delivery systems, including nanoparticles, liposomes, nano micelles, branched dendrimers, nanocapsules, and nanostructured lipid formulations for the targeted therapy of ovarian cancer. These nanoformulations offer numerous advantages to promote therapeutic drug delivery such as nontoxicity, biocompatibility, good biodegradability, increased therapeutic impact than free drugs, and non-inflammatory effects. Importantly, the development of specific ligands functionalized nanoformulations enable preferential targeting of ovarian tumors and eventually amplify the therapeutic potential compared to nonfunctionalized counterparts. Ovarian cancer is typically identified by biomarker assessment such as CA125, HE4, Mucin 1, and prostatic. There is, nevertheless, a tremendous demand for less costly, faster, and compact medical tools, both for timely detection and ovarian cancer control. This paper explored multiple types of tumor marker-based on nanomaterial biosensors. Initially, we mention different forms of ovarian cancer biomarkers involving CA125, human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), mucin 1 (MUC1), and prostate. It is accompanied by a brief description of new nanotechnology methods for diagnosis. Nanobiosensors for evaluating ovarian cancer biomarkers can be categorized based on electrochemical, optical, paper-based, giant magnetoresistive, and lab-on-a-chip devices.

Reducing Disparities in Receipt of Genetic Counseling for Underserved Women at Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Purpose: Genetic counseling (GC) provides critical risk prediction information to women at-risk of carrying a genetic alternation; yet racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities persist with regard to GC uptake. This study examined patterns of GC uptake after a referral in a racially diverse population. Materials and Methods: In an urban academic medical center, medical records were reviewed between January 2016 and December 2017 for women who were referred to a genetic counselor for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Study outcomes were making an appointment (yes/no) and keeping an appointment. We assessed sociodemographic factors and clinical factors. Associations between factors and the outcomes were analyzed using chi square, and logistic regression was used for multivariable analysis. Results: A total of 510 women were referred to GC and most made appointments. More than half were white (55.3%) and employed (53.1%). No significant associations were observed between sociodemographic factors and making an appointment. A total of 425 women made an appointment and 268 kept their appointment. Insurance status (p = 0.003), marital status (p = 0.000), and work status (p = 0.039) were associated with receiving GC. In the logistic model, being married (odds ratio [OR] 2.119 [95% confidence interval, CI 1.341-3.347] p = 0.001) and having insurance (OR 2.203 [95% CI 1.208-4.016] p = 0.021) increased the likelihood of receiving counseling. Conclusions: Racial disparities in GC uptake were not observed in this sample. Unmarried women may need additional support to obtain GC. Financial assistance or other options need to be discussed during navigation as a way to lessen the disparity between women with insurance and those without.