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

Keeping it simple: genetics referrals for all invasive serous ovarian cancers

OBJECTIVE

In the province of Ontario, all women diagnosed with invasive serous ovarian cancer are eligible for genetic testing for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This study aimed to determine the proportion of these women who are seen for genetic counseling and to identify potential predictors and barriers to having genetic counseling.

METHODS

All women who were diagnosed with invasive serous ovarian cancer and had genetic counseling at Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) between 2002 and 2009 were identified. Logistic regressions and trend analyses explored age at diagnosis, year at diagnosis, and the time between diagnosis and genetic counseling. Genetic counseling outcomes were also examined.

RESULTS

Of 623 women diagnosed with invasive serous ovarian cancer, 144 (23%) were seen for genetic counseling. As age at diagnosis increased, the likelihood of genetic counseling decreased (p=0.005). With a more recent date of diagnosis, the probability of having genetic counseling increased (p=0.032) while the time to genetic counseling decreased (p=0.001). Of women who pursued genetic testing, 31% were found to have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, 16% of whom had no family history of breast or ovarian cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the availability of genetic testing, only a small proportion of women with invasive serous ovarian cancer were seen for genetic counseling. Over time, an improvement in the proportion of women being seen for genetic counseling was noted; however barriers to seeing women with a later age at diagnosis or those with no family history of breast or ovarian cancer clearly exist.

Genetic risk assessment for women with epithelial ovarian cancer: referral patterns and outcomes in a university gynecologic oncology clinic

Little is known about genetic service utilization and ovarian cancer. We identified the frequency and outcome of genetic counseling referral, predictors of referral, and referral uptake for ovarian cancer patients. Using pathology reports, we identified all epithelial ovarian cancer patients seen in a university gynecologic oncology clinic (1/04-8/06). Electronic medical records (EMR) were used to document genetic service referral, time from diagnosis-to-referral, point-in-treatment at referral, personal/family cancer history, demographics, and genetic test results. Groups were compared using chi-squared and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables. The study population consisted of 376 women with ovarian cancer, 72 (19 %) of who were referred for genetic counseling/testing, primarily during surveillance. Of those referred, 42 (58 %) had personal or family genetic counseling and 34 (47 %) were ultimately tested or identified due to known family mutation. Family history and prior cancer were associated with referral. Family history, living in a larger community, higher-stage disease, and serous histology were associated with undergoing genetic counseling. Risk assessment identified 20 BRCA1/2 (5.3 %) and 1 HNPCC (0.3 %) mutation carriers. Based on recent estimates that 11.7-16.6 % of women with ovarian cancer are BRCA carriers and 2 % are HNPCC carriers, results suggest under-identification of carriers and under-utilization of genetic services by providers and patients. Interventions to increase medical providers' referrals, even in a specialized oncology clinic, are necessary and may include innovations in educating these providers using web-based methods. Ease of referral by the introduction of an electronic cancer genetic referral form represents another new direction that may increase genetic risk assessment for high-risk women with ovarian cancer.

Does the diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer trigger referral to genetic counseling?

OBJECTIVE

Kaiser Permanente Northern California is a large integrated health care delivery system in the United States that has guidelines for referring women with newly diagnosed BRCA1-and BRCA2-associated cancers for genetic counseling. This study assesses adherence to genetic counseling referral guidelines within this health system.

METHODS

Chart review was performed to identify patients with cancer who met the following pathology-based Kaiser Permanente Northern California guidelines for referral for genetic counseling: invasive breast cancer, younger than age 40; nonmucinous epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, younger than age 60; women with synchronous or metachronous primary cancers of the breast and ovaries; and male breast cancer. We assessed compliance with referral guidelines. An electronic notice was sent to the managing physician of patients with newly diagnosed cancer to assess the feasibility of this intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 340 patients were identified with breast cancer at younger than age 40 or with ovarian, peritoneal, or tubal cancer between January and June, 2008. Upon chart review, 105 of these patients met pathology-based criteria for referral to genetic counseling, of whom 47 (45%) were referred within the 2-year study period. Of the 67 subjects with breast cancer, 40 subjects (60%) were referred. In contrast, only 7 (21%) of 33 patients with ovarian cancer were referred (P < 0.001). A pilot study was performed to test the feasibility of notifying managing oncologists with an electronic letter alerting them of eligibility for genetic referral of patients with new diagnosis (n = 21). In the 3 to 6 months after this notification, 12 of these 21 patients were referred for counseling including 5 of 7 patients with a diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

CONCLUSION

There is a missed opportunity for referring patients to genetic counseling, especially among patients with ovarian cancer. A pilot study suggests that alerting treating physicians is a feasible strategy to increase appropriate referral.

Acceptance of genetic counseling and testing in a hospital-based series of patients with gynecological cancer

Referral of patients with endometrial (EC) and/or ovarian cancer (OC) for genetic counseling is based on age at diagnosis and family history. Many patients with hereditary cancers are missed by following this strategy. We determined acceptance and mutation detection rate of offering genetic counseling and testing to unselected EC and OC patients. Therefore, in 2007, EC and OC patients were invited for genetic counseling and testing. Patients were asked for their reasons to accept or decline. Nineteen out of fifty-two EC patients (36 %) and twenty-two out of thirty-five OC patients (63 %) accepted genetic counseling, mainly to receive risk assessment for themselves and relatives. Counseling was declined mainly because patients did not want more tests or had no relatives for whom it was relevant. Eighteen out of nineteen EC patients (95 %) and twenty out of twenty-two OC patients (91 %) underwent genetic testing. One EC patient carried an MSH6 mutation (mutation detection rate: 6 %). BRCA1/2 mutations were found in two out of twenty OC patients (10 %). Eleven patients (29 %) received surveillance recommendations for themselves and their relatives. Finally, family history recorded by the gynecologist was compared to that taken by the clinical geneticist. Gynecologists reported family history in ten out of forty-one participants (24 %). In conclusion, genetic counseling and testing are acceptable to patients with OC and/or EC. The 10 % BRCA1/2 mutation detection rate and underreporting of family history by gynecologists warrant referral for genetic counseling for all OC patients, followed by BRCA1/2 testing if indicated. We recommend that microsatellite instability and immunohistochemical analysis be performed in all EC patients, followed by genetic counseling if appropriate. These strategies will lead to better cancer prevention in gynecological cancer patients and their relatives.

Cognitive and psychological impact of BRCA genetic counseling in before and after definitive surgery breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

To examine changes in cancer-related knowledge, distress, and decisional conflict from pre- to post-genetic counseling (GC) in before (BDS) and after (ADS) definitive surgery breast cancer (BC) patients.

METHODS

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were collected at baseline; primary outcome data were collected before (T1) and after (T2) pretest GC. Within group changes for cancer-related knowledge, distress, and decisional conflict over genetic testing were compared by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

RESULTS

Of 103 BC patients, 87 were ADS and 16 were BDS. Analyses revealed that both groups reported significant increases in knowledge between T1 and T2 (median change 4.2, p = 0.004, and 2.7, p < 0.001, for BDS and ADS patients, respectively). Overall cancer-related distress showed a downward trend between T1 and T2 for both groups and was significant for BDS patients (p = 0.041). Reports of BDS patients trended toward overall and subscale-specific increases in decisional conflict, with the exception of the uncertainty which trended downward, but did not reach significance. Overall decisional conflict decreased in ADS patients, approaching marginal significance (p = 0.056), with significant improvements in informed decision making (median change -12.6, p < 0.001; i.e., pretest GC yielded improved knowledge of benefits, risks, and side effects of available options).

CONCLUSIONS

These pilot data suggest that pretest GC increases cancer-related knowledge for both BDS and ADS patients, decreases distress in BDS patients, and improves informed decision making in ADS patients. Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to replicate these results.

A self-administered family history questionnaire improves identification of women who warrant referral to genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk

OBJECTIVES

This study was undertaken to assess a self-administered family history questionnaire in order to better identify women within a gynecologic oncology practice for referral to genetic counseling services.

METHODS

Returning patients at an outpatient gynecologic oncology clinic completed a self-administered family health history questionnaire and a detailed telephone interview. A genetic counselor separately assessed blinded information garnered from the questionnaire, structured genetic interview, and electronic medical records to determine whether these data warranted referral to genetic counseling based on established criteria. The structured genetic interview was considered the gold standard to which the questionnaire and medical record information were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 45 total participants in the study, 26 (58%) were identified from the structured genetic interview as meeting criteria for referral to genetic counseling. The questionnaire identified 21 (81%) of these 26 referrals, while the medical record identified 13 (50%) of these 26 referrals. This led to a 62% increase in referral capture by the questionnaire. The median time to complete the questionnaire was 17 min (range 5-57 min). Thirty-four participants (75.6%) had more family members with cancer identified on the questionnaire compared to the electronic medical record. The questionnaire identified fewer family members with cancer in the five cases that were missed for appropriate referral.

CONCLUSIONS

Current standard clinical practices are insufficient at identifying patients in need of referral to genetic counseling. A self-administered questionnaire improves recognition of candidates for genetic counseling in a gynecologic oncology practice.

Who is being referred to cancer genetic counseling? Characteristics of counselees and their referral

Both physician and patient play a role in the referral process for cancer genetic counseling. Access to such counseling is not optimal because some eligible patients are not being reached by current referral practice. We aimed to identify factors associated with the initiator of referral. During a 7-month period, we recorded demographic characteristics like gender, personal and family history of cancer, ethnicity and eligibility for genetic testing for 406 consecutive counselees using a specially designed questionnaire. Counselees were seen in a university hospital or a community hospital (n = 7) in the Netherlands. We also recorded educational level of each counselee, clinical setting and who initiated referral. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the counselees' general characteristics. We analysed the association between counselee characteristics and the initiator of referral by logistic regression. The majority of counselees seemed to have initiated referral themselves but were indeed eligible for genetic testing. In comparison to the general population in the Netherlands, the counselees had a higher level of education, and there were fewer immigrants, although a higher level of education was not found to be a facilitating factor for referral. The clinical setting where a counselee was seen was associated with initiator of referral, although this relationship was not straightforward. There is a complex interaction between clinical setting and initiator of referral, which warrants further research to elucidate the factors involved in this relationship. Patients seen in cancer genetic counseling do not reflect the general population in terms of educational level or ethnicity.

Genetic risk and gynecologic cancers

Although most gynecologic malignancies are sporadic, hereditary cancer syndromes cause a substantial portion of these cancers. Given that the diagnosis of these syndromes has prognostic and therapeutic implications for the patient, as well as preventive implications for her family members, genetic testing is now an accepted part of the management of the patient who has gynecologic cancer.

Underutilization of BRCA1/2 testing to guide breast cancer treatment: black and Hispanic women particularly at risk

PURPOSE

Women with early-onset (age ≤40 years) breast cancer are at high risk of carrying deleterious mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes; genetic assessment is thus recommended. Knowledge of BRCA1/2 mutation status is useful in guiding treatment decisions. To date, there has been no national study of BRCA1/2 testing among newly diagnosed women.

METHODS

We used administrative data (2004-2007) from a national sample of 14.4 million commercially insured patients to identify newly diagnosed, early-onset breast cancer cases among women aged 20-40 years (n = 1474). Cox models assessed BRCA1/2 testing, adjusting for covariates and differential lengths of follow-up.

RESULTS

Overall, 30% of women aged 40 years or younger received BRCA1/2 testing. In adjusted analyses, women of Jewish ethnicity were significantly more likely to be tested (hazard ratio = 2.83, 95% confidence interval: 1.52-5.28), whereas black women (hazard ratio = 0.34, 95% 0.18-0.64) and Hispanic women (hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.81) were significantly less likely to be tested than non-Jewish white women. Those enrolled in a health maintenance organization (hazard ratio = 0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.54-0.99) were significantly less likely to receive BRCA1/2 testing than those point of service insurance plans. Testing rates increased sharply for women diagnosed in 2007 compared with 2004.

CONCLUSIONS

In this national sample of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer at high risk for BRCA1/2 mutations, genetic assessment was low, with marked racial differences in testing.

Reported referral for genetic counseling or BRCA 1/2 testing among United States physicians: a vignette-based study

BACKGROUND

Genetic counseling and testing is recommended for women at high but not average risk of ovarian cancer. National estimates of physician adherence to genetic counseling and testing recommendations are lacking.

METHODS

Using a vignette-based study, we surveyed 3200 United States family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician/gynecologists and received 1878 (62%) responses. The questionnaire included an annual examination vignette asking about genetic counseling and testing. The vignette varied patient age, race, insurance status, and ovarian cancer risk. Estimates of physician adherence to genetic counseling and testing recommendations were weighted to the United States primary care physician population. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent patient and physician predictors of adherence.

RESULTS

For average-risk women, 71% of physicians self-reported adhering to recommendations against genetic counseling or testing. In multivariable modeling, predictors of adherence against referral/testing included black versus white race (relative risk [RR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.31), Medicaid versus private insurance (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.29), and rural versus urban location. Among high-risk women, 41% of physicians self-reported adhering to recommendations to refer for genetic counseling or testing. Predictors of adherence for referral/testing were younger patient age [35 vs 51 years [RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.41-2.24]), physician sex (female vs male [RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07-1.64]), and obstetrician/gynecologist versus family medicine specialty (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.31-2.05). For both average-risk and high-risk women, physician-estimated ovarian cancer risk was the most powerful predictor of recommendation adherence.

CONCLUSION

Physicians reported that they would refer many average-risk women and would not refer many high-risk women for genetic counseling/testing. Intervention efforts, including promotion of accurate risk assessment, are needed.

A clinical perspective on genetic counseling and testing during end of life care for women with recurrent progressive ovarian cancer: opportunities and challenges

10-15% of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer is attributable to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The identification of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in women with ovarian cancer allows for accurate predictive genetic testing of their at-risk relatives, who can then avail themselves of early detection and risk reduction strategies. In the case of women with recurrent progressive ovarian cancer, the window of opportunity for genetic testing can be particularly limited. Here we describe our perspective on providing genetic counseling during these patients' end of life care, incorporating two illustrative examples from our clinical practice. While these situations pose unique challenges, they also present a significant opportunity to benefit the patient and her family. Further attention and research should be directed towards provision of genetic counseling and testing during end of life care.