Evaluating women with ovarian cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: missed opportunities

Genetic Testing Uptake among Ovarian Cancer Survivors in the Genetic Risk Analysis in Ovarian Cancer (GRACE) Study

BACKGROUND

Recommendations state all people with ovarian cancers (OCs) receive genetic counseling, but testing uptake is only between 15 and 31%. Those with a prior diagnosis of OC who have not received genetic testing represent a missed opportunity for life-saving genetic risk information. The Genetic Risk Analysis in ovarian CancEr (GRACE) study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of the retrospective identification ("Traceback") of individuals diagnosed with OC.

METHODS

This nonrandomized intervention study within two integrated health care systems identified participants with a history of OC between 1998 and 2020 who did not have genetic testing or testing limited to BRCA1/2. Participants received clinical genomic sequencing via a custom 60 gene panel. This study measured the feasibility of the Traceback methodology in OC survivors.

RESULTS

The initial cohort included 929 individuals, of which 57% had no prior genetic testing. Of the 302 eligible for recruitment, 88 consented to participate. We were able to outreach 97% of the eligible population using contact information from medical records. The stage at diagnosis was the only factor associated with consent. Of the 78 who returned their saliva sample, 21% had pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants, and 79% had negative results.

CONCLUSION

The GRACE study resulted in a 29% uptake of genetic testing in OC survivors. The time since diagnosis did not have an impact on consent or ability to contact. GRACE can inform the implementation of future Traceback programs, providing guidance on how to prevent and mitigate the burden of OC and other hereditary cancers.

Delivery of hereditary cancer genetics services to patients newly diagnosed with ovarian and endometrial cancers at three gynecologic oncology clinics in the USA, Brazil, and Mexico

OBJECTIVE

Three gynecologic oncology clinics located in the USA, Brazil, and Mexico collaborated to evaluate their delivery of hereditary cancer genetics services. This descriptive retrospective review study aimed to establish baseline rates and timeliness of guideline-recommended genetics service delivery to patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, primary peritoneal (ovarian), and endometrial cancers at each clinic.

METHODS

Patients who were newly diagnosed with ovarian and endometrial cancers between September 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020 were identified from the medical records of the clinics. Genetics service delivery metrics included the rates of mismatch repair deficiency tumor testing for patients with endometrial cancer (microsatellite instability/immunohistochemistry, MSI/IHC), referral to genetics services for patients with ovarian cancer, completed genetics consultations, and germline genetic testing for patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers. Timeliness was calculated as the average number of days between diagnosis and the relevant delivery metric. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data.

RESULTS

In total, 1195 patients (596 with ovarian cancer, 599 with endometrial cancer) were included in the analysis, and rates of genetics service delivery varied by clinic. For patients with ovarian cancer, referral rates ranged by clinic from 32.6% to 89.5%; 30.4-65.1% of patients completed genetics consultation and 32.6-68.7% completed genetic testing. The timeliness to genetic testing for patients with ovarian cancer ranged by clinic from 107 to 595 days. A smaller proportion of patients with endometrial cancer completed MSI/IHC testing (10.0-69.2%), with the average time to MSI/IHC ranging from 15 to 282 days. Rates of genetics consultation among patients with endometrial cancer ranged by clinic from 10.8% to 26.0% and 12.5-16.6% completed genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

All clinics successfully established baseline rates and timeliness of delivering hereditary cancer genetics services to patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers. Lower rates of delivering genetics services to patients with endometrial cancer warrant additional research and quality improvement efforts.

Cascade genetic testing: an underutilized pathway to equitable cancer care?

The Precision Medicine Initiative was launched upon the potential of genomic information to tailor medical care. Cascade genetic testing represents a powerful application of precision medicine and involves the process of familial diffusion or the "cascade" of genomic risk information. When an individual (proband) is found to carry a cancer-associated germline pathogenic mutation, the information should be cascaded or shared with at-risk relatives. First degree relatives have a 50% likelihood of carrying the same cancer-associated mutation. This process of cascade testing offers at-risk relatives the opportunity for genetic testing and, for those who also carry the cancer-associated mutation, genetically targeted primary disease prevention through intensive cancer surveillance, chemoprevention and risk-reducing surgery, reducing morbidity and preventing mortality. Cascade testing has been designated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a Tier 1 genomic application for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. In this manuscript we describe a cascade genetic testing and in particular focus on its potential to provide necessary care to medically underserved and vulnerable populations.

Disparities in genetic testing for breast cancer among black and Hispanic women in the United States

Women from racial and ethnic minorities are at a higher risk for developing breast cancer. Despite significant advancements in breast cancer screening, treatment, and overall survival rates, disparities persist among Black and Hispanic women. These disparities manifest as breast cancer at an earlier age with worse prognosis, lower rates of genetic screening, higher rates of advanced-stage diagnosis, and higher rates of breast cancer mortality compared to Caucasian women. The underutilization of available resources, such as genetic testing, counseling, and risk assessment tools, by Black and Hispanic women is one of many reasons contributing to these disparities. This review aims to explore the racial disparities that exist in genetic testing among Black and Hispanic women. Barriers that contribute to racial disparities include limited access to resources, insufficient knowledge and awareness, inconsistent care management, and slow progression of incorporation of genetic data and information from women of racial/ethnic minorities into risk assessment models and genetic databases. These barriers continue to impede rates of genetic testing and counseling among Black and Hispanic mothers. Consequently, it is imperative to address these barriers to promote early risk assessment, genetic testing and counseling, early detection rates, and ultimately, lower mortality rates among women belonging to racial and ethnic minorities.

iKNOWgynetics - A web-based learning concept to empower primary care gynecologists to participate in the care of patients with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer

Familial cancer burden and genetics play an increasingly important role in the early detection and prevention of gynecological cancers. However, people with hereditary cancer risks are often identified late when they already have cancer. We aimed at developing and evaluating a training concept for primary care gynecologists-iKNOWgynetics-to improve their knowledge and awareness of genetic cancer syndromes and their ability to identify patients with increased familial cancer risks based on up-to-date evidence and current guidelines (in Germany, primary care includes all doctors treating patients on an outpatient basis without a clear separation of the expertise of the doctor or of their specialty). Starting off with a needs assessment among primary care gynecologists, we developed and evaluated an online training concept-using a web-based learning platform in combination with a live virtual seminar-to convey practice-relevant knowledge about familial cancer. After registration, participants get access to the web-based learning platform (www.iknowgynetics.de) to prepare for the virtual seminars and to use it as online reference to re-access the contents after the training. Evaluation included multiple-choice (MC) questions on knowledge and participants' self-efficacy to implement the acquired knowledge, which were administered in a pre-post design. Of 109 participants, 103 (94.5%) filled out pre- and post-questionnaires. Eighty-five participants were gynecologists in primary care from Berlin (81.2%) and Brandenburg (18.8%) and had an average of 24.1 years (SD = 8.5 years) of professional experience. After the training, participants answered significantly more knowledge questions correctly (M = 15.2 of 17, SD = 1.3) than before (M = 13.8 of 17, SD = 1.7) (p < 0.01) and felt more confident to be able to apply referral criteria for specialized counseling in practice (p < 0.001). The online-based training iKNOWgynetics considers the busy schedule of primary care gynecologists and supports them in acquiring practice-relevant information on familial cancer risks and on how to identify healthy persons at risk, which may ultimately help to improve the prevention of gynecological cancers. In future studies, the reported concept could be transferred to other entities.

Germline and somatic testing for ovarian Cancer: An SGO clinical practice statement

Germline and somatic genetic testing have become critical components of care for people with ovarian cancer. The identification of germline and somatic pathogenic variants as well as homologous recombination deficiency can contribute to the prediction of treatment response, prognostic outcome, and suitability for targeted agents (e.g. poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors). Furthermore, identifying germline pathogenic variants can prompt cascade genetic testing for at-risk relatives. Despite the clinical benefits and consensus recommendations from several organizations calling for universal genetic testing in ovarian cancer, only about one third of patients complete germline or somatic genetic testing. The members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Clinical Practice Committee have composed this statement to provide an overview of germline and somatic genetic testing for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, focusing on available testing modalities and options for care delivery.

Talking about Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk-Evaluation of a Psychosocial Training Module for Gynecologists in Germany

Primary care gynecologists are increasingly integrated into the care of patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) risks. These physicians should not only have basic genetic knowledge; they should also feel able to sensitively address an increased HBOC risk and deal with emotional, stressful situations in this context. Our project aimed at developing a training module, 'iKNOWgynetics', addressing psychosocial challenges in the context of HBOC care for primary care gynecologists. We developed the psychosocial training module in three phases: first, we conducted an online survey with n = 35 women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer to assess patients' experiences and needs. Second, based on the results of the needs assessment, we developed the training module. Third, we evaluated the training by assessing physicians' (n = 109) self-efficacy with regard to communication skills in the context of HBOC before and after the training. In the needs assessment, seven psychosocial themes emerged. These themes, complementing a review of the literature, informed the training curriculum. The training was divided into two parts: (1) communicating with women before genetic testing and (2) care co-management for women with HBOC after genetic testing. After the training, participants reported a significant increase in self-efficacy in three domains: communicating empathetically, educating patients in a comprehensible way and dealing with emotionally challenging situations. Our results highlight the relevance of psychosocial issues for patients with HBOC. A genetic literacy training module that integrates aspects of psychosocial care increases physicians' confidence in dealing with emotionally challenging situations before and after their patients' genetic testing. Thus, such trainings may improve the care of women with hereditary cancer risks.

The power of hope: Views of Ovarian Cancer patients on how maintenance therapy Affects their Lives (VOCAL)

Aim: To assess maintenance preference and trade-offs for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: Patients completed a time trade-off exercise ranking five maintenance approaches. Patients' preferred approach was compared with alternatives to determine the progression-free time they would trade off to remain on their preferred approach. Results: Of 152 patients (median age 53 years, 68% White), 56% chose one of four maintenance medications, mostly to feel proactive and 44% chose active surveillance. Compared with their preferred approach, patients were willing to trade a mean progression-free time before switching of 2.3 months for once-daily oral medications, 3.2 months for twice-daily oral medications, 5.5 months for intravenous infusions every 3 weeks (iv. q3), 6.1 months for active surveillance and 7.5 months for iv. q3 and twice-daily oral. Conclusion: Findings highlight the importance of patients' awareness of all maintenance approaches and involving them in the decision-making process.

Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent.

METHODS

Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons.

RESULTS

Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result (BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4).

CONCLUSION

Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.

BRCA germline mutations in multiethnic gynecologic patients: A 10-year retrospective analysis from a single cancer institute

Histologic and genetic mutation information from racially and ethnically diverse populations is warranted to better inform future cancer predisposition and promote health equity. A single institutional, retrospective capture of patients with gynecologic conditions and genetic susceptibilities to malignant neoplasms of the breast or ovaries was performed. This was achieved with manual curation of the electronic medical record (EMR) from 2010-2020 with the use of ICD-10 code searches. Among 8983 consecutive women identified with gynecologic conditions, 184 were diagnosed with pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutations. Median age was 54 (22-90). Mutations included insertion/deletion (majority frameshift, 57.4%), substitution (32.4%), large structural rearrangement (5.4%), and alteration in splice site/intronic sequence (4.7%). A total of 48% were non-Hispanic White, 32% Hispanic or Latino, 13% Asian, 2% Black, and 5% Other. The most common pathology was high grade serous carcinoma (HGSC, 63%), followed by unclassified/high grade carcinoma (13%). Additional multigene panels led to the detection of 23 additional BRCA-positive patients with germline co-mutations and/or variants of uncertain significance in genes functionally involved in DNA repair mechanisms. Hispanic or Latino and Asian individuals comprised 45% of patients with concomitant gynecologic condition and gBRCA positivity in our cohort, confirming that germline mutations are represented across racial and ethnic groups. Insertion/deletion mutations, the majority of which led to a frameshift change, occurred in approximately half of our patient cohort, which may have prognostic implication for therapy resistance. Prospective studies are needed to unravel the significance of germline co-mutations in gynecologic patients.

Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 1% of individuals have a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, however, the majority are not aware. Collecting a cancer family history (CFH) can triage patients to receive genetic testing. To rigorously assess different methods of CFH collection, we compared a web-based tool (WBT) to usual care (clinician collects CFH) in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

New gynecologic oncology patients (seen 9/2019-9/2021) were randomized to one of three arms in a 2:2:1 allocation ratio: 1) usual care clinician CFH collection, 2) WBT completed at home, or 3) WBT completed in office. The WBT generated a cancer-focused pedigree and scores on eight validated cancer risk models. The primary outcome was collection of an adequate CFH (based on established guidelines) with usual care versus the WBT.

RESULTS

We enrolled 250 participants (usual care - 110; WBT home - 105; WBT office - 35 [closed early due to COVID-19]). Within WBT arms, 109 (78%) participants completed the tool, with higher completion for office versus home (33 [94%] vs. 76 [72%], P = 0.008). Among participants completing the WBT, 63 (58%) had an adequate CFH versus 5 (5%) for usual care (P < 0.001). Participants completing the WBT were significantly more likely to complete genetic counseling (34 [31%] vs. 15 [14%], P = 0.002) and genetic testing (20 [18%] vs. 9 [8%], P = 0.029). Participant and provider WBT experience was favorable.

CONCLUSIONS

WBTs for CFH collection are a promising application of health information technology, resulting in more comprehensive CFH and a significantly greater percentage of participants completing genetic counseling and testing.

Understanding inequities in precision oncology diagnostics

Advances in molecular diagnostics have enabled the identification of targetable driver pathogenic variants, forming the basis of precision oncology care. However, the adoption of new technologies, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels, can exacerbate healthcare disparities. Here, we summarize data on use patterns of advanced biomarker testing, highlight the disparities in both accessing NGS testing and using this data to match patients to appropriate personalized therapies and propose multidisciplinary strategies to address inequities looking forward.

Evaluating cancer genetic services in a safety net system: overcoming barriers for a lasting impact beyond the CHARM research project

Underserved patients face substantial barriers to receiving cancer genetic services. The Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study evaluated ways to increase access to genetic testing for individuals in underserved populations at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS). Here, we report the successful implementation of CHARM in a low-resource environment and the development of sustainable processes to continue genetic risk assessment in this setting. The research team involved key clinical personnel and patient advisors at Denver Health to provide input on study methods and materials. Through iterative and collaborative stakeholder engagement, the team identified barriers and developed solutions that would both facilitate participation in CHARM and be feasible to implement and sustain long term in clinical care. With a focus on infrastructure building, educational modules were developed to increase awareness among referring providers, and standard methods of identifying and managing HCS patients were implemented in the electronic medical record. Three hundred sixty-four DH patients successfully completed the risk assessment tool within the study, and we observed a sustained increase in referrals to genetics for HCS (from 179 in 2017 to 427 in 2021 post-intervention). Implementation of the CHARM study at a low-resourced safety net health system resulted in sustainable improvements in access to cancer genetic risk assessment and services that continue even after the study ended.Trial registration NCT03426878.

Missing a chance to prevent: disparities in completion of genetic evaluation in high-risk patients with endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

The primary goal of this study is to examine disparities in high-risk endometrial cancer (EC) patients in relation to rates of genetic referrals (GR), testing (GT), and counseling (GC).

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of patients with newly diagnosed EC between January 1, 2014 and September 1, 2020 at a single institution. Patients were defined as high-risk EC patients when they were 1) diagnosed at 50 years or younger, 2) had a positive family history for cancer or 3) had evidence of loss of mismatch repair protein expression on tumor immunohistochemistry. Rates of GR, GT and GC were analyzed based on race, ethnicity, primary language and insurance status.

RESULTS

During the study period, 674 patients were diagnosed with EC and 249 (36.9%) were considered high-risk EC patients. Among high-risk patients, 128 (51.2%) were referred to GT and GC. Of those referred, 103 (80.5%) underwent GT and 85 (66.4%) completed GC. Out of all high-risk patients, 20 (18.4%) were positive for LS on GT and 29 (28.2%) had VUS results. In multivariate analysis, the odds of GT and GC referral were lower among patients who identified as Hispanic (OR=0.40; 95% CI=0.19-0.87; p=0.020). Patients who identified as black were less likely to receive GC when compared to patients of other races (p=0.030).

CONCLUSION

It is our hope that through this data we will increase awareness around existing disparities in genetic evaluation for patients with EC and ultimately create strategies to improve equitable access to care for all patients.

Genetic Testing Among Patients with High-Risk Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate Cancers

BACKGROUND

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends genetic testing in patients with potentially hereditary breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers (HBOPP). Knowledge of genetic mutations impacts decisions about screening and treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 28,586 HBOPP patients diagnosed from 2013 to 2019 was conducted using a linked administrative-cancer database in the Seattle-Puget Sound SEER area. Guideline-concordant testing (GCT) was assessed annually according to guideline updates. Frequency of testing according to patient/cancer characteristics was evaluated using chi-squared tests, and factors associated with receipt of genetic testing were identified using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Testing occurred in 17% of HBOPP patients, increasing from 9% in 2013 to 21% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Ovarian cancer had the highest testing (40%) and prostate cancer the lowest (4%). Age < 50, female sex, non-Hispanic White race, commercial insurance, urban location, family history of HBOPP, and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) were associated with increased testing (all p < 0.05). GCT increased from 38% in 2013 to 44% in 2019, and was highest for early age at breast cancer diagnosis, TNBC, male breast cancer, and breast cancer with family history of HBOPP (all > 70% in 2019), and lowest for metastatic prostate cancer (6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of genetic testing for HBOPP cancer has increased over time. Though GCT is high for breast cancer, there are gaps in concordance among patients with other cancers. Increasing provider and patient education, genetic counseling, and insurance coverage for testing among HBOPP patients may improve guideline adherence.

Delivering Genetic Testing for Patients with Prostate Cancer: Moving Beyond Provider Knowledge as a Barrier to Care

INTRODUCTION

The 2018 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for prostate cancer genetic testing expanded access to genetic services. Few studies have examined how this change has affected provider practice outside of large cancer centers.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study of multi-disciplinary health care providers treating patients with prostate cancer at a safety-net hospital. Participants completed an interview that addressed knowledge, practices, and contextual factors related to providing genetic services to patients with prostate cancer. A thematic analysis using both inductive and deductive coding was undertaken.

RESULTS

Seventeen providers completed interviews. Challenges in identifying eligible patients for genetic testing stemmed from a lack of a) systems that facilitate routine patient identification, and b) readily available family history data for eligibility determination. Providers identified non-medical patient characteristics that influenced their referral process, including health literacy, language, cultural beliefs, patient distress, and cost. Providers who see patients at different times along the cancer care continuum viewed benefits of testing differently.

CONCLUSION

The use of digital technologies that systematically identify those eligible for genetic testing referrals may mitigate some but not all challenges identified in this study. Further research should determine how individual provider perceptions influence referral practices and patient access to genetics both within and across cancer specialties.

What happens in the long term: Uptake of cancer surveillance and prevention strategies among at-risk relatives with pathogenic variants detected via cascade testing

BACKGROUND

Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes offers affected relatives the opportunity to pursue cancer screening and risk-reducing surgery and thus reduces morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to measure the long-term utilization of targeted cancer prevention and quality of life among at-risk relatives offered clinician-facilitated cascade genetic testing.

METHODS

In a pilot study, at-risk relatives of patients with a hereditary cancer syndrome were contacted directly by the clinical team and offered telephone genetic counseling and genetic testing via an at-home, mailed saliva kit. Two-year follow-up results evaluating the use of targeted cancer prevention strategies and the quality of life for enrolled relatives were reported. Quality-of-life was measured with validated surveys, and scores were compared to the time of initial contact by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

Ninety-five at-risk relatives were enrolled in the initial pilot study, and 72 (76%) participated in the 2-year follow-up; 57 of these (79%) had completed genetic testing. Twenty-five of those 57 relatives (44%) were found to harbor an inherited pathogenic variant. Guideline-based cancer surveillance was recommended to 18 relatives; 13 (72%) completed at least one recommended screening, and six (33%) completed all recommended screenings. Risk-reducing surgery was recommended to 10 relatives; four (40%) completed a total of eight procedures. Quality-of-life surveys demonstrated low levels of anxiety, depression, distress, and uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2-year follow-up of the original pilot study revealed that clinician-facilitated cascade testing resulted in genetically targeted cancer screening and prevention with preserved quality of life. These results, to be confirmed by larger randomized controlled trials, suggest that medical systems should consider supporting clinician-facilitated cascade testing programs.

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.

Literacy-adapted, electronic family history assessment for genetics referral in primary care: patient user insights from qualitative interviews

BACKGROUND

Risk assessment for hereditary cancer syndromes is recommended in primary care, but family history is rarely collected in enough detail to facilitate risk assessment and referral - a roadblock that disproportionately impacts individuals with healthcare access barriers. We sought to qualitatively assess a literacy-adapted, electronic patient-facing family history tool developed for use in diverse, underserved patient populations recruited in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study.

METHODS

Interview participants were recruited from a subpopulation of CHARM participants who experienced barriers to tool use in terms of spending a longer time to complete the tool, having incomplete attempts, and/or providing inaccurate family history in comparison to a genetic counselor-collected standard. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants about barriers and facilitators to tool use and overall tool acceptability; interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were coded based on a codebook developed using inductive techniques, and coded excerpts were reviewed to identify overarching themes related to barriers and facilitators to family history self-assessment and acceptability of the study tool.

RESULTS

Interviewees endorsed the tool as easy to navigate and understand. However, they described barriers related to family history information, literacy and language, and certain tool functions. Participants offered concrete, easy-to-implement solutions to each barrier. Despite experience barriers to use of the tool, most participants indicated that electronic family history self-assessment was acceptable or preferable in comparison to clinician-collected family history.

CONCLUSIONS

Even for participants who experienced barriers to tool use, family history self-assessment was considered an acceptable alternative to clinician-collected family history. Barriers experienced could be overcome with minor adaptations to the current family history tool.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is a sub-study of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) trial, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03426878. Registered 8 February 2018.

Point/Counterpoint: Is It Time for Universal Germline Genetic Testing for all GI Cancers?

Use of germline genetic testing among patients with cancer is increasing because of (1) the availability of multigene panel tests that include multiple cancer susceptibility genes in a single test, (2) decreased costs of these tests and improvements in insurance coverage, and (3) US Food and Drug Administration-approval of genotype-directed therapies such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for individuals with certain cancers and pathogenic germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (with possible benefits with other genes in the homologous repair deficiency pathway). In addition, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines have already endorsed germline genetic testing for all patients with certain cancer types (epithelial ovarian cancer, exocrine pancreatic cancer, and high-grade/metastatic prostate cancer), regardless of age or personal/family history of cancer. Herein, we debate the pros and cons of offering germline multigene panel testing to all patients diagnosed with any GI cancer. The authors agree that it may just be a matter of time before germline multigene panel testing is offered to all patients with cancer; however, this article will highlight some of the benefits, risks, and limitations of this approach so that research can help fill some of the gaps to ensure that genetic medicine continues to be implemented in ways that improve real-world patient care and outcomes.

Laboratory-related outcomes from integrating an accessible delivery model for hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in populations with barriers to access

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the laboratory-related outcomes of participants who were offered genomic testing based on cancer family history risk assessment tools.

METHODS

Patients from clinics that serve populations with access barriers, who are screened at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome based on adapted family history collection tools (the Breast Cancer Genetics Referral Screening Tool and PREMM₅), were offered exome-based panel testing for cancer risk and medically actionable secondary findings. We used descriptive statistics, electronic health record review, and inferential statistics to explore participant characteristics and results, consultations and actions related to pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants identified, and variables predicting category of findings, respectively.

RESULTS

Of all the participants, 87% successfully returned a saliva kit. Overall, 5% had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic cancer risk variant and 1% had a secondary finding. Almost all (14/15, 93%) participants completed recommended consultations with nongenetics providers after an average of 17 months. The recommended actions (eg, breast magnetic resonance imaging) were completed by 17 of 25 participants. Participant personal history of cancer and PREMM₅ score were each associated with the category of findings (history and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .02; history and breast cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .01; PREMM₅^TM score; and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This accessible model of hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing yielded results that were often acted upon by patients and physicians.

Genetic Testing for All: Overcoming Disparities in Ovarian Cancer Genetic Testing

Nearly 3% of the population carries genetic variants that lead to conditions that include hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. These pathogenic variants account for approximately 20% of ovarian cancer cases, and those with germline pathogenic variants have an odds ratio between 4 and 40 for developing ovarian cancer compared with noncarriers. Given the high prevalence of genetic variants, multiple organizations, including ASCO, recommend universal genetic counseling and testing for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Unfortunately, most individuals with a hereditary ovarian cancer syndrome are unaware of their underlying mutation, and racial and ethnic minority individuals as well as patients of low socioeconomic status experience disproportionate rates of underrecognition, leading to late and missed diagnoses. In this article, we review the current understanding of disparities in genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer, the role of population-based genetic testing, and innovative strategies to overcome the critical inequities present in current cancer genetic medicine. Underuse and disparities related to accessing recommended genetic services are complex and multifactorial, requiring improvements in processes related to provider identification, genetic counseling and testing referral, and patient uptake/adherence. Through the expansion of remote genetic counseling, offering online strategies for genetic testing, and reaching at-risk relatives through direct relative contact cascade testing and population-based genetic testing, there are a growing number of innovations in the field of genetic medicine, many of which emphasize health equity and offer promising alternatives to the current paradigm of genetic testing.

Automated Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations for Hereditary Cancer Risk Using Chatbots and Ontologies: System Description

BACKGROUND

Identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer based on their family health history is a highly nuanced task. Frequently, patients at risk are not referred for genetic counseling as providers lack the time and training to collect and assess their family health history. Consequently, patients at risk do not receive genetic counseling and testing that they need to determine the preventive steps they should take to mitigate their risk.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to automate clinical practice guideline recommendations for hereditary cancer risk based on patient family health history.

METHODS

We combined chatbots, web application programming interfaces, clinical practice guidelines, and ontologies into a web service-oriented system that can automate family health history collection and assessment. We used Owlready2 and Protégé to develop a lightweight, patient-centric clinical practice guideline domain ontology using hereditary cancer criteria from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Cancer Comprehensive Network.

RESULTS

The domain ontology has 758 classes, 20 object properties, 23 datatype properties, and 42 individuals and encompasses 44 cancers, 144 genes, and 113 clinical practice guideline criteria. So far, it has been used to assess >5000 family health history cases. We created 192 test cases to ensure concordance with clinical practice guidelines. The average test case completes in 4.5 (SD 1.9) seconds, the longest in 19.6 seconds, and the shortest in 2.9 seconds.

CONCLUSIONS

Web service-enabled, chatbot-oriented family health history collection and ontology-driven clinical practice guideline criteria risk assessment is a simple and effective method for automating hereditary cancer risk screening.

Factors influencing genetic counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome in a large US health care system

Investigate whether disparities and other factors influence referral to genetic counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) in a large health care system. Examination of clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic factors from electronic health records associated with genetic referral and testing within 12 months after a new cancer diagnosed between August 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018. For patients meeting institutional criteria for HBOC testing, 60.6% were referred for genetic counseling, 88% of whom underwent germline testing; at least one pathogenic variant was found in 15.3%. Referral rates for patients with breast (69%) or ovarian cancer (65.7%) were much higher than for metastatic prostate (11.1%, p < 0.0001) or pancreatic cancer (22.3%, p < 0.0001); referral criteria were implemented more recently for the latter two cancers. Younger age, family history, and chemotherapy were associated with referral. Higher Elixhauser comorbidity score and prior cancer were associated with non-referral. No other factors were associated with genetic referral for all eligible cancers combined, although differences were seen in specific cancers. Race was a significant factor only for breast cancer, with fewer Asians than Whites referred. Health disparities in referral to genetics for HBOC cancers are mitigated in a comprehensive integrated health care system.

Comparison of a Cancer Family History Collection and Risk Assessment Tool - ItRunsInMyFamily - with Risk Assessment by Health-Care Professionals

INTRODUCTION

Primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists lack time and training to appropriately identify patients at increased risk for hereditary cancer using family health history (FHx) and clinical practice guideline (CPG) criteria. We built a tool, "ItRunsInMyFamily" (ItRuns) that automates FHx collection and risk assessment using CPGs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ItRuns by measuring the level of concordance in referral patterns for genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT) between the CPGs as applied by the tool and genetic counselors (GCs), in comparison to oncologists and PCPs. The extent to which non-GCs are discordant with CPGs is a gap that health information technology, such as ItRuns, can help close to facilitate the identification of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer.

METHODS

We curated 18 FHx cases and surveyed GCs and non-GCs (oncologists and PCPs) to assess concordance with ItRuns CPG criteria for referring patients for GC/GT. Percent agreement was used to describe concordance, and logistic regression to compare providers and the tool's concordance with CPG criteria.

RESULTS

GCs had the best overall concordance with the CPGs used in ItRuns at 82.2%, followed by oncologists with 66.0% and PCPs with 60.6%. GCs were significantly more likely to concur with CPGs (OR = 4.04, 95% CI = 3.35-4.89) than non-GCs. All providers had higher concordance with CPGs for FHx cases that met the criteria for genetic counseling/testing than for cases that did not.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

The risk assessment provided by ItRuns was highly concordant with that of GC's, particularly for at-risk individuals. The use of such technology-based tools improves efficiency and can lead to greater numbers of at-risk individuals accessing genetic counseling, testing, and mutation-based interventions to improve health.

Disparities in Genetic Testing for Heritable Solid-Tumor Malignancies

Genetic testing offers providers a potentially life saving tool for identifying and intervening in high-risk individuals. However, disparities in receipt of genetic testing have been consistently demonstrated and undoubtedly have significant implications for the populations not receiving the standard of care. If correctly used, there is the potential for genetic testing to play a role in decreasing health disparities among individuals of different races and ethnicities. However, if genetic testing continues to revolutionize cancer care while being disproportionately distributed, it also has the potential to widen the existing mortality gap between various racial and ethnic populations.

Factors Affecting Genetic Consultation in Adolescent and Young Adult Patients With Sarcoma

BACKGROUND

Given a link between sarcomas and hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes, including Li-Fraumeni syndrome, the consideration for genetic counseling is recommended for all adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients diagnosed with sarcoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate factors influencing genetic consultations in AYA patients with sarcoma at the University of Wisconsin (UW).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on AYA patients diagnosed with sarcoma between the ages of 15 and 39 years who were seen at least once between 2015 to 2019 at UW. Our chart review identified discussions regarding genetics, referrals to genetics, genetic consultations, and results of genetic testing. Variables hypothesized to affect patient referrals for genetic consultation were identified a priori. Descriptive statistical methods and a univariate analysis were used to identify patient characteristics associated with genetic counseling referral.

RESULTS

We identified 87 AYA patients with sarcoma. Only 19 (22%) of these patients had documentation of a discussion about genetics, 15 (17%) of whom were subsequently referred for genetic consultation. Of these 15 patients, 9 (60%) were seen in consultation. All 9 patients seen by genetics underwent genetic testing, with 4 (44%) of these patients having identified heritable cancer predisposition syndromes. Likelihood for genetics referral was linked most strongly to documented genetics discussion with an oncology provider (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the recommendation for consideration for genetic counseling in AYA patients with sarcoma, <25% of such patients in our study had a documented discussion about genetics. Supporting this need, all referred patients met criteria for genetic testing, and 44% of tested patients were found to have a heritable cancer predisposition syndrome. These data support the initial conversation by a provider as critical to genetic referral and suggest the need for more specific national recommendations for the genetic evaluation of all AYA patients with sarcoma.

Germline mutations in Black patients with ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinomas

OBJECTIVE

Routine genetic testing for ovarian cancer and identification of germline mutations can help improve early detection of cancer as well as guide treatment. Knowledge of genetic counseling and referral rates for genetic testing has been lower for Black patients, compared to White patients. We aimed to describe the demographics and presence of germline mutations in Black individuals with ovarian, fallopian tube or peritoneal carcinoma at two large academic institutions.

METHODS

Fifty-one Black patients with invasive epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma were identified via institutional tissue banks over a 20-year time-period. Germline DNA was sequenced using BROCA, a targeted capture and parallel sequencing assay that identified pathogenic germline mutations in ovarian carcinoma susceptibility genes.

RESULTS

Germline mutations in ovarian cancer susceptibility genes were found in 25.5% of women, most commonly BRCA1 and BRCA2. This mutation frequency mirrors those previously described among predominantly White populations. Our data suggests there may be an advantage in survival among those with germline mutations, although this was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Given similar frequencies of germline mutations between Black and White patients with ovarian cancer, we conclude that there are not major differences in the genetic predisposition to ovarian carcinoma. Equitable access to genomic advancements including germline and tumor sequencing would facilitate equal access to PARP inhibitors, the standard of care for patients with BRCA mutated advanced ovarian cancer.

Evaluation and comparison of hereditary Cancer guidelines in the population

BACKGROUND

Family health history (FHx) is an effective tool for identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer. Hereditary cancer clinical practice guidelines (CPG) contain criteria used to evaluate FHx and to make recommendations for genetic consultation. Comparing different CPGs used to evaluate a common set of FHx provides insight into how well the CPGs perform, the extent of agreement across guidelines, and how well they identify patients who should consider a cancer genetic consultation.

METHODS

We compare the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Networks (NCCN) (2019) CPG criteria for FHx collected by a chatbot and evaluated by ontologies and web services in a previous study. Collected FHx met criteria from seven groups: Gene Mutation, Breast and Ovarian, Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), Colorectal and Endometrial, Relative Meets Criteria, ACMG Only Criteria, and NCCN Testing. CPG Criteria were coded and matched across 12 ACMG sub-guidelines and 6 NCCN sub-guidelines for comparison purposes.

RESULTS

The dataset contains 4915 records, of which 2221 met either ACMG or NCCN criteria and 2694 did not. There was significant overlap-1179 probands met both ACMG and NCCN criteria. The greatest similarities were for Gene Mutation and Breast and Ovarian criteria and the greatest disparity existed among Colorectal and Endometrial criteria. Only 156 positive gene mutations were reported and of the 2694 probands who did not meet criteria, 90.6% of them reported at least one cancer in their personal or family cancer history.

CONCLUSION

Hereditary cancer CPGs are useful for identifying patients at risk of developing cancer based on FHx. This comparison shows that with the aid of chatbots, ontologies, and web services, CPGs can be more efficiently applied to identify patients at risk of hereditary cancer. Additionally this comparison examines similarities and differences between ACMG and NCCN and shows the importance of using both guidelines when evaluating hereditary cancer risk.

Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM): A clinical trial assessing a multimodal cancer genetics services delivery program and its impact on diverse populations

Advances in the application of genomic technologies in clinical care have the potential to increase existing healthcare disparities. Studies have consistently shown that only a fraction of eligible patients with a family history of cancer receive recommended cancer genetic counseling and subsequent genetic testing. Care delivery models using pre-test and post-test counseling are not scalable, which contributes to barriers in accessing genetics services. These barriers are even more pronounced for patients in historically underserved populations. We have designed a multimodal intervention to improve subsequent cancer surveillance, by improving the identification of patients at risk for familial cancer syndromes, reducing barriers to genetic counseling/testing, and increasing patient understanding of complex genetic results. We are evaluating this intervention in two large, integrated healthcare systems that serve diverse patient populations (NCT03426878). The primary outcome is the number of diagnostic (hereditary cancer syndrome) findings. We are examining the clinical and personal utility of streamlined pathways to genetic testing using electronic medical record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews. We will assess downstream care utilization of individuals receiving usual clinical care vs. genetic testing through the study. We will evaluate the impacts of a literacy-focused genetic counseling approach versus usual care genetic counseling on care utilization and participant understanding, satisfaction, and family communication. By recruiting participants belonging to historically underserved populations, this study is uniquely positioned to evaluate the potential of a novel genetics care delivery program to reduce care disparities.

Electronic Family History Screening Tool for Detection of Inherited Cancer Risk: A Prospective Pilot Study

Family history screening to identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary cancers could be a powerful strategy to prevent cancer but is used inconsistently in primary care. The objective was to improve identification of women with at-risk family histories using a point-of-care family history screening tool administered on an electronic tablet device during well-woman appointments. A total of 288 women were invited to participate and 136 women (47.2%) completed the electronic family history screening tool. Significantly more women were identified and referred to the genetics department with the electronic family history screening tool than the standard-of-care paper questionnaire (11.8% versus 0.8%, P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of referred women who were evaluated by the genetic counselors, and no pathogenic variants were found with either family history screening method. Implementing innovative self-reporting tools may improve inherited cancer risk detection.

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.

Oncologists' perspectives of telephone genetic counseling to facilitate germline BRCA1/2 testing for their patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer

Poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors offer a survival advantage to women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer who have a germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV). Yet, rates of genetic testing among this population have remained persistently low. A national, centralized telephone genetic counseling service was established in January 2016 in Australia to improve access to genetic services and facilitate BRCA1/2 testing for this population to inform treatment. Medical oncologists can refer their patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer to this service for genetic testing. This study aimed to explore oncologists' experiences of using this telephone genetic counseling service for their patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. A qualitative approach using semi-structured telephone interviews was undertaken with Australian oncologists who had referred patients to the telephone genetic counseling service. Sixteen oncologists participated and described referring patients to the telephone genetic counseling service due to the timeliness of obtaining a genetic counseling appointment and BRCA1/2 test results. They also reported this service offered convenience for patients living in regional or rural areas who then did not have to travel for an appointment with a clinical genetics service. Many oncologists noted the importance of in-person genetic counseling for patients who received positive BRCA1/2 results. Areas for improvement identified by the oncologists related to communication issues between the service and the patient. Overall, findings suggest that oncologists perceived telephone genetic counseling as an acceptable and useful healthcare service for patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Moreover, they perceived telephone genetic counseling to be efficient, delivering convenient genetic counseling to patients.

Adaptation and early implementation of the PREdiction model for gene mutations (PREMM5™) for lynch syndrome risk assessment in a diverse population

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common inherited cause of colorectal and endometrial cancers. Identifying individuals at risk for LS without personal cancer history requires detailed collection and assessment of family health history. However, barriers exist to family health history collection, especially in historically underserved populations. To improve LS risk assessment in historically underserved populations, we adapted the provider-facing PREdiction Model for gene Mutations (PREMM₅™ model), a validated LS risk assessment model, into a patient-facing electronic application through an iterative development process involving expert and patient stakeholders. We report on preliminary findings based on the first 500 individuals exposed to the adapted application in a primary care population enriched for low-literacy and low-resource patients. Major adaptations to the PREMM₅™ provider module included reduction in reading level, addition of interactive literacy aids, incorporation of family history assessment for both maternal and paternal sides of the family, and inclusion of questions about individual relatives or small groups of relatives to reduce cognitive burden. In the first 500 individuals, 90% completed the PREMM₅™ independently; of those, 94% did so in 5 min or less (ranged from 0.2 to 48.8 min). The patient-facing application was able to accurately classify 84% of patients as having clinically significant or not clinically significant LS risk. Our preliminary results suggest that in this diverse study population, most participants were able to rapidly, accurately, and independently complete an interactive application collecting family health history assessment that accurately assessed for Lynch syndrome risk.

The Prognostic and Predictive Role of Somatic BRCA Mutations in Ovarian Cancer: Results from a Multicenter Cohort Study

Previous research involving epithelial ovarian cancer patients showed that, compared to germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutations, somatic BRCA (sBRCA) mutations present a similar positive impact with regard to overall survival (OS) and platinum and PARP (poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitor sensitivity. Nevertheless, molecular testing in these studies did not include copy number variation (CNV) analyses of BRCA genes. The aim of this study was to explore the prognostic and predictive role of sBRCA mutations as compared to gBRCA mutations in patients who were also tested for CNVs. Among the 158 patients included in the study, 17.09% of patients carried a pathogenic or likely pathogenic gBRCA variant and 15.19% of patients presented pathogenetic or likely pathogenic sBRCA variants and/or CNVs. Overall, 81.6% of the patients included in this study were diagnosed with a serous histotype, and 77.2% were in advanced stages. Among women diagnosed in advanced stages, gBRCA patients showed better progression-free survival and OS as compared to sBRCA and wild-type patients, whereas sBRCA patients did not show any advantage in outcome as compared to wild-type patients. In this study, the introduction of CNV analyses increased the detection rate of sBRCA mutations, and the resulting classification among gBRCA, sBRCA and wild-type patients was able to properly stratify the prognosis of OC patients. Particularly, sBRCA mutation patients failed to show any outcome advantage as compared to wild-type patients.

Embedding a genetic counselor into oncology clinics improves testing rates and timeliness for women with ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Germline genetic testing is crucial to the care of ovarian cancer patients, and as part of the guideline-based care for ovarian cancer patient's adherence to this recommendation has been low. We sought to determine whether embedding a genetic counselor (GC) within a medical and gynecologic oncology clinic would increase testing rates and improve the timeliness of testing.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of 358 ovarian cancer patients seen by medical and gynecologic oncologists between 2013 and 2015. Rates of referrals, completion of counseling, and genetic testing and timeliness of counseling were abstracted before and after a GC was embedded in the clinic in 2014. An additional year of data (2015) was collected to evaluate sustainability of the intervention.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2015, 88-92% of women were referred for genetic testing, but in 2013 only 66% completed counseling and 61% were tested. After a GC was embedded in the clinic in 2014, more than 80% of referred women completed counseling and germline genetic testing. Time to genetic counseling also decreased from a median of 107 to 40 days, irrespective of age and cancer family history (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Embedding a GC into the workflow for ovarian cancer patients is an effective way of improving access to genetic counseling, testing rates, and the timeliness of testing.

Streamlining genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer in a Northern California health care system

OBJECTIVE

Referral to Genetics for pre-testing counseling may be inefficient for women with ovarian cancer. This study assesses feasibility of gynecologic oncologists directly offering genetic testing.

METHODS

A prospective pilot study was conducted at two gynecologic oncology hubs in an integrated healthcare system from May 1 to November 6, 2019. Gynecologic oncologists offered multigene panel testing to women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, followed by selective genetic counseling. Outcomes were compared between study participants and women from other hubs in the health system.

RESULTS

Of ovarian cancer patients at study sites, 40 participated and all underwent genetic testing. Of 101 patients diagnosed at other sites, 85% were referred to genetics (p = .0061 compared to pilot participants) and 67% completed testing (p < .0001). The time from diagnosis to blood draw and notification of result was 18.5 and 34 days for the pilot group compared to 25.5 and 53 days at other sites. Panel testing detected 9 (22.5%) and 7 (10.3%, p = .08) pathogenic mutations in each group, respectively. Patients and providers were highly satisfied with the streamlined process.

CONCLUSION

Genetic testing performed at the gynecologic oncology point of care for patients with ovarian cancer is feasible, increases uptake of testing, and improves time to results.

How can Australia integrate routine genetic sequencing in oncology: a qualitative study through an implementation science lens

PURPOSE

This study sought to determine genetics and oncology specialists' views of integrating BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in epithelial ovarian and breast cancer into routine practice.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were designed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Questions included experiences or views of the BRCA testing processes, implementation needs of oncology health professionals, perceived challenges, and future ideas for interventions to integrate genetic testing into oncology.

RESULTS

Twenty-two participants were interviewed from twelve health organizations and four themes were identified: (1) embracing the shift to mainstream genetic testing, with the majority of participants viewing BRCA testing as clinically useful and routine use important for maintaining a patient centered process; (2) the need for communication networks and role delineation to integrate routine genetic testing; (3) factors that influence sustaining routine genetic testing, including ongoing training, resources and funding, real-world adaptation, system complexity, and champions; and (4) variation in system interventions for integrating routine genetic testing align to organizational context.

CONCLUSION

Findings illustrate the need for integrating genetic testing into routine oncology, and that adaptation of interventions and processes is essential to sustain a feasible model. An understanding of individual and organizational implementation factors will help to prepare for future integration of routine genetic testing in other cancers.

Impact of family history risk assessment on surgical decisions and imaging surveillance at breast cancer diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

In June 2013, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published guidance on the management of women with a family history (FH) of breast cancer (BC) and a personal diagnosis of BC. When diagnosed with BC, pressure of timely treatment takes priority and there is potential for a significant FH to be overlooked. This can affect treatment options and follow-up imaging (FUI) surveillance.

METHODS

The practice in our breast unit was compared with the NICE guidance with regard to arranging appropriate FUI and referral to the genetics team for women diagnosed with BC with a FH of BC. Data were obtained retrospectively on 200 women with BC, identified from the breast multidisciplinary team meetings from January to March 2014. Initial audit showed poor compliance with recording of FH. A standardised history taking proforma was produced for clinic use. A re-audit was conducted on a further 200 women between May and July 2016.

RESULTS

In the initial audit, FH was taken in 151 women (76%) compared with 174 women (87%) in the re-audit. Thirty-seven women (25%) were thought to be of moderate risk (MR) or high risk (HR) based on FH in the first audit. Re-audit identified 35 women (20%) with MR or HR FH. Under half (43%) of the women of HR were referred to the genetics team initially; this increased to 70% in the second audit. While almost half (46%) of the women with MR or HR had inappropriate FUI in the initial audit, this fell to 11% in the re-audit.

CONCLUSIONS

A proportion of women diagnosed with BC would fall into the MR or HR categories as defined in the NICE FH guidance. Inadequate recording of FH could result in inadequate FUI surveillance and in some cases missing the opportunity for a genetic referral to assess suitability for gene testing.

Cascading After Peridiagnostic Cancer Genetic Testing: An Alternative to Population-Based Screening

PURPOSE

Despite advances in DNA sequencing technology and expanded medical guidelines, the vast majority of individuals carrying pathogenic variants of common cancer susceptibility genes have yet to be identified. An alternative to population-wide genetic screening of healthy individuals would exploit the trend for genetic testing at the time of cancer diagnosis to guide therapy and prevention, combined with augmented familial diffusion or "cascade" of genomic risk information.

METHODS

Using a multiple linear regression model, we derived the time interval to detect an estimated 3.9 million individuals in the United States with a pathogenic variant in 1 of 18 cancer susceptibility genes. We analyzed the impact of the proportion of incident patients sequenced, varying observed frequencies of pathogenic germline variants in patients with cancer, differential rates of diffusion of genetic information in families, and family size.

RESULTS

The time to detect inherited cancer predisposing variants in the population is affected by the extent of cascade to first-, second-, and third-degree relatives (FDR, SDR, TDR, respectively), family size, prevalence of mutations in patients with cancer, and the proportion of patients with cancer sequenced. In a representative scenario, assuming a 7% prevalence of pathogenic variants across cancer types, an average family size of 3 per generation, and 15% of incident patients with cancer in the United States undergoing germline testing, the time to detect all 3.9 million individuals with pathogenic variants in 18 cancer susceptibility genes would be 46.2, 22.3, 13.6, and 9.9 years if 10%, 25%, 50%, and 70%, respectively, of all FDR, SDR, and TDR were tested for familial mutations.

CONCLUSION

Peridiagnostic and cascade cancer genetic testing offers an alternative strategy to achieve population-wide identification of cancer susceptibility mutations.

Facilitated referral pathway for genetic testing at the time of ovarian cancer diagnosis: uptake of genetic counseling and testing and impact on patient-reported stress, anxiety and depression

BACKGROUND

Timely genetic testing at ovarian cancer diagnosis is essential as results impact front line treatment decisions. Our objective was to determine rates of genetic counseling and testing with an expedited genetics referral pathway wherein women with newly-diagnosed ovarian cancer are contacted by a genetics navigator to facilitate genetic counseling.

METHODS

Patients were referred for genetic counseling by their gynecologic oncologist, contacted by a genetics navigator and offered appointments for genetic counseling. Patients completed quality of life (QoL) surveys immediately pre- and post-genetic assessment and 6 months later. The primary outcome was feasibility of this pathway defined by presentation for genetic counseling.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2018, 100 patients were enrolled. Seventy-eight had genetic counseling and 73 testing. Median time from diagnosis to genetic counseling was 34 days (range 10-189). Among patients who underwent testing, 12 (16%) had pathogenic germline mutations (BRCA1-7, BRCA2-4, MSH2-1). Sixty-five patients completed QoL assessments demonstrating stress and anxiety at time of testing, however, scores improved at 6 months. Despite the pathway leveling financial and logistical barriers, patients receiving care at a public hospital were less likely to present for genetic counseling compared to private hospital patients (56% versus 84%, P = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

Facilitated referral to genetic counselors at time of ovarian cancer diagnosis is effective, resulting in high uptake of genetic counseling and testing, and does not demonstrate a long term psychologic toll. Concern about causing additional emotional distress should not deter clinicians from early genetics referral as genetic testing can yield important prognostic and therapeutic information.

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

The hereditary contribution to ovarian cancer has been increasingly recognized over the past decade, with a 2014 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) recommendation for all women with epithelial ovarian cancer to be considered for genetic testing. The objective of the study was to determine if disparities exist in genetic referrals and characterize referral patterns over time. A retrospective cohort study included all women diagnosed with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer at the University of Virginia from 2004 to 2015. Clinicopathologic data were abstracted from the electronic medical record and analyzed for association with genetic referral and testing. We identified 696 cases, with a median age of 62 years and a median follow up of 25.2 months (range 1-115). Thirty-four percent were referred for genetic counseling with an 80% genetic testing rate in those women. Referrals increased from a rate of 8% in 2004 to 68% in 2015. On multivariable analysis, papillary serous histology (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.6), stage III disease (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6-7.5), ovarian cancer family history (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.5-4.6), breast cancer family history (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.5), and diagnosis after 2014 (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-4.1) remained significantly associated with genetics referral. Older age and living > 100 miles away were associated with decreased referral (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99 per year and OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.86). As only 68% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer were referred in 2015 innovative strategies such as Medicare coverage for counseling are still needed to universalize testing.

Identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling: non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care

Background

Recent guidelines recommend genetic counselling and DNA testing (GCT) for patients with ovarian cancer and survivors of ovarian cancer. Finding survivors of ovarian cancer is challenging. Detecting and referring them for GCT via primary care, to allow proper screening recommendations for patients and their family, may be a solution.

Aim

To compare the effectiveness and acceptance of two pilot strategies directed at case finding women with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for GCT by their GP.

Design and setting

Non-randomised comparison of the pilot implementation of two case-finding strategies for women with a history of ovarian cancer in Dutch primary care from May 2016 to April 2017.

Method

Strategy A (unsupported) asked GPs to identify and refer eligible patients with a history of ovarian cancer. Strategy B (ICT-supported) provided GPs with information and communication technology (ICT) support to identify patients with a history of ovarian cancer electronically. The effectiveness of each strategy was assessed as the proportion of patients who were approached, referred for GCT, and seen by the clinical geneticist. Acceptance of each strategy was assessed by the intervention uptake of GP practices and GP and patient questionnaires.

Results

Nineteen out of 30 (63%) patients identified with a history of ovarian cancer were deemed eligible for referral for strategy A, and 39 out of 94 (41%) for strategy B. For each strategy, eight patients were referred and five (63%) were seen for GCT. The intervention uptake by GP practices was 31% (11 out of 36) for strategy A and 46% (21 out of 46) for strategy B. GPs considered ‘relevance’ and ‘workability’ as facilitators across both strategies whereas, for strategy B, technical barriers hindered implementation.

Conclusion

The effectiveness and acceptance of both strategies for case finding of survivors of ovarian cancer in primary care for GCT is promising, but larger studies are required before wide-scale implementation is warranted.

Disparities in gynecologic cancer genetics evaluation

An estimated 2-5% of endometrial cancers and 15-20% of high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancers have an underlying hereditary cause. Appropriate risk assessment, genetic counseling, and germline genetic testing for cancer predisposition genes in both gynecologic cancer patients and their at-risk relatives is essential for effective delivery of tailored cancer treatment and cancer prevention. However, significant disparities exist within medically underserved and minority populations in the United States regarding awareness of, access to, and use of genetic services. The objectives of this review are to summarize the literature on genetic counseling and genetic testing of gynecologic cancer patients, the cascade genetic testing of their families following the identification of a germline mutation associated with susceptibility to cancer, to highlight disparities between populations, and to present some potential remedies.

Genetic Counseling and Testing in a Community Setting: Quality, Access, and Efficiency

There is an increasing need for genetic counseling and testing for individuals diagnosed with cancer, as treatment may be affected by the results. In addition, the identification of individuals before a diagnosis of cancer allows for optimal surveillance and early detection and prevention of cancer. With the recognition that as much as 10% of all cancers are hereditary, there is a growing need to improve access to genetic counseling and genetic testing, both before and at the time of diagnosis. This article focuses on models of identifying at-risk patients, including underserved communities; providing genetic counseling and testing in community practices; using telehealth; and collaborating with nongenetics health care providers and technological solutions to maximize efficiency and access.

Disseminating universal genetic testing to a diverse, indigent patient population at a county hospital gynecologic oncology clinic

OBJECTIVE

The universal genetic testing initiative (UGTI) is a quality improvement effort to increase rates of guideline-based genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) of patients with potentially hereditary cancers. The UGTI was disseminated to a county hospital gynecologic oncology clinic that serves a diverse, indigent patient population.

METHODS

Using the Model for Improvement quality improvement framework, interventions including integrated GC, clinic tracking, assisted GC referrals, and provider education were tested over 26 months. A retrospective data review included patients with high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers (HGOC) and endometrial cancers (EC) diagnosed between 9/1/12-8/31/16. Statistical analyses were performed to describe the population and to evaluate rates of recommendation and use of immunohistochemistry tumor testing (IHC), GC, and GT.

RESULTS

A cohort of 241 patients (57 HGOC, 184 EC) were included. At the conclusion of the study 84.2% of HGOC patients were referred for GC, 89.6% (43/48) completed GC, and 90.7% (39/43) completed GT. Of EC patients, 81.0% were recommended to have IHC and 62.4% (93/149) completed IHC. Patients with HGOC diagnosed during dissemination of UGTI were significantly more likely to receive a recommendation for GC (p = 0.02) and to complete GT (p = 0.03) than those diagnosed before UGTI. Patients with EC were significantly more likely to complete IHC if diagnosed after UGTI than those diagnosed prior to dissemination (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The UGTI can be adapted to increase use of guideline-based cancer genetics services in a diverse, indigent, gynecologic cancer patient population.