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

Cost-Effectiveness of Remote Tailored Risk Communication and Navigation for Hereditary Genetic Risk Assessment Uptake: Economic Evaluation From the Genetic Risk Assessment for Cancer Education and Empowerment Trial

PURPOSE

The Genetic Risk Assessment for Cancer Education and Empowerment Project demonstrated that tailored counseling and navigation (TCN) substantially increased the rate of genetic evaluation (GE) in women with high-risk breast or ovarian cancer (odds ratio, 8.9 [95% CI, 3.4 to 23.5] for TCN v usual care [UC]). This study sought to estimate the cost and cost-effectiveness of TCN in a clinic setting from a societal perspective.

METHODS

We identified the components of the intervention and downstream outcomes which would result in resource use. We assessed time spent by staff, cost of mailings, cost of patient time, and cost of testing and counseling in 6 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for outcomes of interest. We assessed the sensitivity of our results to assumptions via one-way sensitivity analyses. In addition, we assessed how results would change if a higher volume of patients was given TCN, with a health coach working full-time.

RESULTS

TCN costs $68,924 in US dollars (USD) to deliver per 212 patients, or $325 USD per patient. The intervention cost was $2,154 USD per record-verified GE. Much of this was attributed to training costs for health coaches ($50,223 USD). When including testing and counseling, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of TCN versus UC was $3,250 USD per additional GE. This was most sensitive to TCN effectiveness (ie, GE rate in TCN patients) and cost of testing. Cost-effectiveness would be more favorable with higher coaching volume (ICER of $1,730 USD/GE).

CONCLUSION

Implementing TCN in a clinic setting would come with notable costs, and current reimbursement policies for telemedicine may not be sufficient. Cost-effectiveness of TCN can be improved if subsequent interventions are more efficacious or are delivered to greater patient volumes.

Differential Receipt of Genetic Services Among Patients With Gynecologic Cancer and Their Relatives: A Review of Challenges to Health Equity

Up to 14% of endometrial cancers and 23% of epithelial ovarian cancers are associated with genetic predispositions. Referral for genetic testing and counseling can significantly impact a patient's oncologic outcomes. However, significant disparities in genetic referral and testing exist within medically underserved and minority populations in the United States. These disparities in care and access to care are multifactorial, often involving patient-level, health care-level, and system-level factors. In this review, we focus on disparities in genetic testing among patients with ovarian and uterine cancer, and the missed opportunities for primary cancer prevention among their relatives.

Mapping inter-professional collaboration in oncogenetics: Results from a scoping review

Inter-professional collaboration could improve timely access and quality of oncogenetic services. Here, we present the results of a scoping review conducted to systematically identify collaborative models available, unpack the nature and extent of collaboration proposed, synthesize evidence on their implementation and evaluation, and identify areas where additional research is needed. A comprehensive search was conducted in four journal indexing databases on June 13th, 2022, and complemented with searches of the grey literature and citations. Screening was conducted by two independent reviewers. Eligible documents included those describing either the theory of change, planning, implementation and/or evaluation of collaborative oncogenetic models. 165 publications were identified, describing 136 unique interventions/studies on oncogenetic models with somewhat overlapping collaborative features. Collaboration appears to be mostly inter-professional in nature, often taking place during risk assessment and pre-testing genetic counseling. Yet, most publications provide very limited information on their collaborative features, and only a few studies have set out to formally evaluate them. Better quality research is needed to comprehensively examine and make conclusions regarding the value of collaboration in this oncogenetics. We propose a definition, logic model, and typology of collaborative oncogenetic models to strengthen future planning, implementation, and evaluation in this field.

Retrospective chart analysis to determine the impact of a patient-facing digital risk stratification tool combined with a clinical screener for hereditary cancer genetic risk assessment triage in a community oncology clinic

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of adding a clinical screener to the patient-facing digital risk stratification tool triage process for the identification of patients eligible for a genetic risk assessment for hereditary cancer. Digital risk stratification entries were retrospectively reviewed to determine the overall number of patients eligible for genetic risk assessment. These were also analyzed to determine how many patients were re-contacted by the clinical screener, and how many of those recontacted patients met criteria after their personal and family history was revised by the clinical screener. There was an 89.9% digital risk stratification triage tool completion rate, with 22.6% requiring contact from the clinical screener. Of the 640 patients who completed the digital tool, 5.9% met criteria for testing after their personal and/or family history was revised by the clinical screener. Overall, 51.1% of patients met criteria for a genetic risk assessment. The addition of a clinical screener further increased identification of patients eligible for genetic risk assessment. About half of patients who met criteria after being contacted by the clinical screener met criteria based on their personal diagnosis of cancer alone. Incorporation of a clinical screener to the digital screening process may serve to reduce barriers to patient completion of the tool and increase rates of patient identification for cancer genetic services.

Identifying Mediators of Intervention Effects Within a Randomized Controlled Trial to Motivate Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment Among Breast and Ovarian Cancer Survivors

BACKGROUND

A theory-guided Tailored Counseling and Navigation (TCN) intervention successfully increased cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) uptake among cancer survivors at increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Understanding the pathways by which interventions motivate behavior change is important for identifying the intervention's active components.

PURPOSE

We examined whether the TCN intervention exerted effects on CGRA uptake through hypothesized theoretical mediators.

METHODS

Cancer survivors at elevated risk for HBOC were recruited from three statewide cancer registries and were randomly assigned to three arms: TCN (n = 212), Targeted Print (TP, n = 216), and Usual Care (UC, n = 213). Theoretical mediators from the Extended Parallel Process Model, Health Action Planning Approach, and Ottawa Decision Support Framework were assessed at baseline and 1-month follow-up; CGRA uptake was assessed at 6 months. Generalized structural equation modeling was used for mediation analysis.

RESULTS

The TCN effects were most strongly mediated by behavioral intention alone (β = 0.49 and 0.31) and by serial mediation through self-efficacy and intention (β = 0.041 and 0.10) when compared with UC and TP, respectively. In addition, compared with UC, the TCN also increased CGRA through increased perceived susceptibility, knowledge of HBOC, and response efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk communication and behavioral change interventions for hereditary cancer should stress a person's increased genetic risk and the potential benefits of genetic counseling and testing, as well as bolster efficacy beliefs by helping remove barriers to CGRA. System-level and policy interventions are needed to further expand access.

Same day service: A genetic testing station model to improve germline genetic testing in patients with ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Genetic testing for ovarian cancer (OC) patients is essential to consideration of PARP inhibitor therapy. To improve access, we piloted a Genetic Testing Station (GTS) allowing patients to have a same-day genetic testing visit facilitated by Genetic Counselor Assistants (GCAs) under the supervision of Genetic Counselors (GCs).

METHODS

The GTS was implemented December 2018 and operated through February 2020. Gynecologic Oncologists offered ovarian cancer patients a same-day GTS visit with a GCA. The patient received education via videos designed by GCs and then provided consent, a brief family history, and a sample for a standardized 133-gene panel. Results were provided by a GC. Patients were retrospectively identified by querying the medical record for OC patients seen 12 months prior to and 18 months after GTS implementation.

RESULTS

A total of 482 patients pre-GTS were compared to 625 patients post-GTS. Genetic testing increased from 68.5% to 75.4% (p = 0.012) after implementation, primarily in patients with epithelial histologies (80% vs 89% in pre-GTS vs post-GTS, p = 0.005). Time from referral for genetic testing to obtaining results was evaluated in the post-GTS cohort, comparing patients who had traditional counseling to those who utilized the GTS. Time to obtaining results was 21 days in the GTS group (95% CI [10, 34]) compared to 56 days (95% CI [41,76]) in the traditional genetic counseling group.

CONCLUSIONS

The GTS reduces barriers to care and facilitates discussion of precision treatment within a timely fashion while optimizing GC clinic time. Access improvement remains integral to improving uptake of genetic testing.

A mainstreaming oncogenomics model: improving the identification of Lynch syndrome

Introduction

"Mainstreaming" is a proposed strategy to integrate genomic testing into oncology. The aim of this paper is to develop a mainstreaming oncogenomics model by identifying health system interventions and implementation strategies for mainstreaming Lynch syndrome genomic testing.

Methods

A rigorous theoretical approach inclusive of conducting a systematic review and qualitative and quantitative studies was undertaken using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Theory-informed implementation data were mapped to the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework to generate potential strategies.

Results

The systematic review identified a lack of theory-guided health system interventions and evaluation for Lynch syndrome and other mainstreaming programs. The qualitative study phase included 22 participants from 12 health organizations. The quantitative Lynch syndrome survey included 198 responses: 26% and 66% from genetic and oncology health professionals, respectively. Studies identified the relative advantage and clinical utility of mainstreaming to improve genetic test access and to streamline care, and adaptation of current processes was recognized for results delivery and follow-up. Barriers identified included funding, infrastructure and resources, and the need for process and role delineation. The interventions to overcome barriers were as follows: embedded mainstream genetic counselors, electronic medical record genetic test ordering, results tracking, and mainstreaming education resources. Implementation evidence was connected through the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework resulting in a mainstreaming oncogenomics model.

Discussion

The proposed mainstreaming oncogenomics model acts as a complex intervention. It features an adaptable suite of implementation strategies to inform Lynch syndrome and other hereditary cancer service delivery. Implementation and evaluation of the model are required in future research.

Improving Uptake of Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment in a Remote Tailored Risk Communication and Navigation Intervention: Large Effect Size but Room to Grow

PURPOSE

Cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) is recommended for women with ovarian cancer or high-risk breast cancer, yet fewer than 30% receive recommended genetic services, with the lowest rates among underserved populations. We hypothesized that compared with usual care (UC) and mailed targeted print (TP) education, CGRA uptake would be highest among women receiving a phone-based tailored risk counseling and navigation intervention (TCN).

METHODS

In this three-arm randomized trial, women with ovarian or high-risk breast cancer were recruited from statewide cancer registries in Colorado, New Jersey, and New Mexico. Participants assigned to TP received a mailed educational brochure. Participants assigned to TCN received the mailed educational brochure, an initial phone-based psychoeducational session with a health coach, a follow-up letter, and a follow-up navigation phone call.

RESULTS

Participants' average age was 61 years, 25.4% identified as Hispanic, 5.9% identified as non-Hispanic Black, and 17.5% lived in rural areas. At 6 months, more women in TCN received CGRA (18.7%) than those in TP (3%; odds ratio, 7.4; 95% CI, 3.0 to 18.3; P < .0001) or UC (2.5%; odds ratio, 8.9; 95% CI, 3.4 to 23.5; P < .0001). There were no significant differences in CGRA uptake between TP and UC. Commonly cited barriers to genetic counseling were lack of provider referral (33.7%) and cost (26.5%), whereas anticipated difficulty coping with test results (14.0%) and cost (41.2%) were barriers for genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

TCN increased CGRA uptake in a group of geographically and ethnically diverse high-risk breast and ovarian cancer survivors. Remote personalized interventions that incorporate evidence-based health communication and behavior change strategies may increase CGRA among women recruited from statewide cancer registries.

Evaluation of family history in individuals with heterozygous BRCA pathogenic variants diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer in a single center in Italy

BACKGROUND

BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations are responsible for 5% of breast cancer (BC) and 10-15% of ovarian cancer (EOC). The presence of a germline mutation and therefore the identification of subjects at high risk of developing cancer should ideally precede the onset of the disease, so that appropriate surveillance and risk-reducing treatments can be proposed. In this study, we revisited the family history (FH) of women who tested positive for BRCA mutations after being diagnosed with BC or EOC.

METHODS

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®), and the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines were applied to the FH of 157 women who were referred to San Gerardo Hospital for genetic counseling.

RESULTS

Almost 85% of women had an FH of BRCA-related cancer. 63.7% and 52.2% of women could have undergone genetic testing according to NCCN and AIOM testing criteria (p < .05) before tumor diagnosis. An FH of EOC was the most frequent NCCN criterion, followed by BC diagnosed <45 years old. Sixty-five percent of deceased women could have undergone genetic testing before developing cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

FH is a powerful tool to identify high-risk individuals eligible for genetic counseling and testing. Testing of healthy individuals should be considered when an appropriately affected family member is unavailable for testing.

Referral, Genetic Counselling, and BRCA Testing in the Manitoba High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer Population, 2004-2019

(1) Background: The primary objective of this study was to examine the rate of genetic referral, BRCA testing, and BRCA positivity amongst all patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancers (HGSOC) from 2004-2019. The secondary objective was to analyze secondary factors that may affect the rates of referral and testing. (2) Methods: This population-based cohort study included all women diagnosed with HGSOC using the Manitoba Cancer Registry, CervixCheck registry, Medical Claims database at Manitoba Health, the Hospital Discharge abstract, the Population Registry, and Winnipeg Regional Health Authority genetics data. Data were examined for three different time cohorts (2004-2013, 2014-2016; 2017-2019) correlating to practice pattern changes. (3) Results: A total of 944 patients were diagnosed with HGSOC. The rate of genetic referrals changed over the three timeframes (20.0% → 56.7% → 36.6%) and rate of genetic testing increased over the entire timeframe. Factors found to increase rates of referral and testing included age, histology, history of oral contraceptive use, and family history of ovarian cancer. Prior health care utilization indicators did not affect genetic referral or testing. (4) Conclusion: The rate of genetic referral (2004-2016) and BRCA1/2 testing (2004-2019) for patients with a diagnosis of HGSOC increased over time. A minority of patients received a consultation for genetics counselling, and even fewer received testing for a BRCA1/2. Without a genetic result, it is difficult for clinicians to inform treatment decisions. Additional efforts are needed to increase genetics consultation and testing for Manitoban patients with HGSOC. Effects of routine tumour testing on rates of genetic referral will have to be examined in future studies.

Interventions to improve delivery of cancer genetics services in the United States: A scoping review

PURPOSE

Interventions that decrease barriers and improve clinical processes can increase patient access to guideline-recommended cancer genetics services. We sought to identify and describe interventions to improve patient receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services in the United States.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 1, 2000 to February 12, 2020. Eligible articles reported interventions to improve the identification, referral, genetic counseling (GC), and genetic testing (GT) of patients in the United States. We independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full-text articles. Data were synthesized by grouping articles by clinical process.

RESULTS

Of 44 included articles, 17 targeted identification of eligible patients, 14 targeted referral, 15 targeted GC, and 16 targeted GT. Patient identification interventions included universal tumor testing and screening of medical/family history. Referral interventions included medical record system adaptations, standardizing processes, and provider notifications. GC interventions included supplemental patient education, integrated GC within oncology clinics, appointment coordination, and alternative service delivery models. One article directly targeted the GT process by implementing provider-coordinated testing.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified and described interventions to improve US patients' access to and receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services.

“It was an important part of my treatment”: a qualitative study of Norwegian breast Cancer patients’ experiences with mainstreamed genetic testing

Background

In South-Eastern Norway, genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is offered to breast cancer patients by their treating surgeon or oncologist. Genetic counselling from a geneticist or a genetic counsellor is offered only to those who test positive for a pathogenic variant or have a family history of cancer. This practice is termed “mainstreamed genetic testing”. The aim of this study was to learn about patients’ experience of this healthcare service.

Methods

Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 22 breast cancer patients who had been diagnosed during the first half of 2016 or 2017 at one regional and one university hospital and who had been offered testing by their treating physician. A six-phase thematic approach was used to analyse the data.

Results

The participants had varied experiences of how and when testing was offered. Three main themes emerged from the analysis: 1. informational and communicational needs and challenges during a chaotic time, 2. the value of genetic testing and 3. the importance of standardised routines for mainstreamed genetic testing.

Conclusions

Despite the shock of their diagnosis and the varying experiences they had in respect of how and when testing was offered, all of the participants emphasised that genetic testing had been an important part of their diagnosis and treatment. Our results indicate that there is a need for continuous collaboration between geneticists, surgeons, oncologists and laboratory specialists in order to establish simple and robust routines so as to ensure that all eligible breast cancer patients are offered testing at a point when the test result can have an impact on treatment.

An overview of genetic services delivery for hereditary breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women worldwide, with approximately 5-10% of cases attributed to high penetrance hereditary breast cancer (HBC) genes. The tremendous advances in precision oncology have broadened indications for germline genetic testing to guide both systemic and surgical treatment, with increasing demand for cancer genetic services. The HBC continuum of care includes (1) identification, access, and uptake of genetic counseling and testing; (2) the delivery of genetic counseling and testing services; and (3) initiation of guideline-adherent follow-up care and family communication of results. Challenges to delivering care on the HBC care continuum include factors such as access to services, cost, discrimination and bias, and lack of education and awareness, which can be mitigated through implementing a multi-level approach. This includes strategies such as increasing awareness and utilization of genetic counseling and testing, developing new methods to meet the growing demand for genetic services, and improving the uptake of follow-up care by increasing patient and provider awareness of the management recommendations.

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.

Health system interventions to integrate genetic testing in routine oncology services: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Integration of genetic testing into routine oncology care could improve access to testing. This systematic review investigated interventions and the tailored implementation strategies aimed at increasing access to genetic counselling and testing and identifying hereditary cancer in oncology.

METHODS

The search strategy results were reported using the PRISMA statement and four electronic databases were searched. Eligible studies included routine genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer or uptake after universal tumour screening for colorectal or endometrial cancer. The titles and abstracts were reviewed and the full text articles screened for eligibility. Data extraction was preformed using a designed template and study appraisal was assessed using an adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Extracted data were mapped to Proctor's et al outcomes and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and qualitatively synthesised.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies, published up to May 2020, met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies ranged from poor (72%), fair to good (28%) quality. Most interventions identified were complex (multiple components) such as; patient or health professional education, interdisciplinary practice and a documentation or system change. Forty-eight percent of studies with complex interventions demonstrated on average a 35% increase in access to genetic counselling and a 15% increase in testing completion. Mapping of study outcomes showed that 70% and 32% of the studies aligned with either the service and client or the implementation level outcome and 96% to the process or inner setting domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence suggests that complex interventions have a potentially positive effect towards genetic counselling and testing completion rates in oncology services. Studies of sound methodological quality that explore a greater breadth of pre and post implementation outcomes and informed by theory are needed. Such research could inform future service delivery models for the integration of genetics into oncology services.

Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients in two hospitals in South Eastern Norway

Studies have shown that a significant number of eligible breast cancer patients are not offered genetic testing or referral to genetic counseling. To increase access to genetic testing in South Eastern Norway, testing has since 2014 been offered directly to breast cancer patients by surgeons and oncologists. This practice is termed “mainstreamed genetic testing”. The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent patients in South Eastern Norway are offered testing. Three hundred and sixty one patients diagnosed in 2016 and 2017 at one regional and one university hospital in South Eastern Norway were included. Data on whether the patients fulfilled the criteria, whether they had been offered testing and if they were tested were collected. In total, 26.6% (96/361) fulfilled the criteria for testing. Seventy five percent (69/92) of these were offered testing, and 71.7% (66/92) were tested. At the university hospital, 90.2% (37/41) of eligible patients were offered testing, and at the regional hospital 62.7% (32/51). Fifty two percent (12/23) of eligible patient not offered testing were younger than 50 years at time of diagnosis. As many as 95.4% (125/131) of all patients who were offered testing, wanted to be tested. The majority of patients who fulfilled the criteria were offered testing, supporting the practice of mainstreamed genetic testing. There were nevertheless differences in rates of testing between the hospitals that affected all groups of patients, indicating that genetic testing may not be equally accessible to all patients. We suggest that efforts should be made to increase awareness and improve routines for genetic testing of breast cancer patients in Norway.

Initiatives to Scale Up and Expand Reach of Cancer Genomic Services Outside of Specialty Clinical Settings: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

This systematic review aims to (1) characterize strategies used to identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and Lynch syndrome outside of oncology and clinical genetic settings, (2) describe the extent to which these strategies have extended the reach of genetic services to underserved target populations, and (3) summarize indicators of the potential scalability of these strategies.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Investigators searched PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for manuscripts published from October 2005 to August 2019. Eligible manuscripts were those published in English, those that described strategies to identify those at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome, those implemented outside of an oncology or genetic specialty clinic, and those that included measures of cancer genetic services uptake. This study assessed strategies used to increase the reach of genetic risk screening and counseling services. Each study was evaluated using the 16-item quality assessment tool, and results were reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Of the 16 eligible studies, 11 were conducted in clinical settings and 5 in public health settings. Regardless of setting, most (63%, 10/16) used brief screening tools to identify people with a family history suggestive of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome. When reported, genetic risk screening reach (range =11%-100%) and genetic counseling reach (range =11%-100%) varied widely across studies. Strategies implemented in public health settings appeared to be more successful (median counseling reach=65%) than those implemented in clinical settings (median counseling reach=26%). Most studies did not describe fundamental components relevant for broad scalability.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to expand cancer genomic services are limited outside of traditional oncology and genetic clinics. This is a missed opportunity because evidence thus far suggests that these efforts can be successful in expanding the reach of genetic services with the potential to reduce health inequities in access. This review highlights the need for accelerating research that applies evidence-based implementation strategies and frameworks along with process evaluation to understand barriers and facilitators to scalability of strategies with high reach.

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.

Variations in the Referral Pattern for Genetic Counseling of Patients with Early-Onset Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Study in Southern Sweden

Swedish national breast cancer guidelines recommend that all women diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) at the age of 35 years or younger should be referred to their regional oncogenetic clinic for genetic counseling and testing, regardless of family history of cancer. The main objective of this study was to evaluate whether place of residence at BC diagnosis and treating hospital were associated with the fact that not all BC patients diagnosed at ≤35 years in the southern part of Sweden have attended genetic counseling and testing. Between 2000 and 2013, 279 women in the South Swedish Health Care Region were diagnosed with BC at ≤35 years. Information regarding place of residence at BC diagnosis, treating hospital, time of registration and first meeting at the Oncogenetic Clinic in Lund, and genetic testing was collected. With a follow-up period until August 2018, 64% were registered at the clinic (60% underwent genetic testing) and 36% were not. BC patients from 2 counties and from rural settings with a population of <10,000 inhabitants were significantly less likely to be registered at the clinic. Our results suggest that place of residence at BC diagnosis and treating hospital were associated with the probability of referral for genetic counseling and testing for women diagnosed with BC at ≤35 years in the South Swedish Health Care Region. We propose, as a generalizable finding, that further educational and outreach activities within the health care system and the community may be needed to ensure that all women diagnosed with early-onset BC receive proper genetic counseling.

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.

Predictors of genetic testing uptake in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Many newly diagnosed breast cancer patients do not receive genetic counseling and testing at the time of diagnosis. We examined predictors of genetic testing (GT) in this population.

METHODS

Within a randomized controlled trial of proactive rapid genetic counseling and testing vs usual care, patients completed a baseline survey within 6 weeks of breast cancer diagnosis but before a definitive survey. We conducted a multinomial logistic regression to identify predictors of GT timing/uptake.

RESULTS

Having discussed GT with a surgeon was a dominant predictor (χ² (2, N = 320) = 70.13; P < .0001). Among those who discussed GT with a surgeon, patients who had made a final surgery decision were less likely to receive GT before surgery compared with postsurgically (OR [odds ratio] = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.12-0.49) or no testing (OR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.14-0.56). Older patients (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.91-0.99) and participants enrolled in New York/New Jersey (OR = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.07-0.72) were less likely to be tested compared with receiving results before surgery. Those with higher perceived risk (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.00-1.03) were more likely to receive results before surgery than to not be tested.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the role of patient-physician communication about GT as well as patient-level factors that predict presurgical GT.

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.

Exploring Predictors of Genetic Counseling and Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Findings from the 2015 U.S. National Health Interview Survey

Despite efforts to increase the availability of clinical genetic testing and counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian (HBOC)-related cancers, these services remain underutilized in clinical settings. There have been few efforts to understand the public's use of cancer genetic services, particularly for HBOC-related cancers. This analysis is based on data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a U.S.-based nationwide probability sample, to better understand the public's use of HBOC-related clinical cancer genetic services. Bivariate analyses were used to compute percentages and examine the associations of familial cancer risk for three genetic services outcomes (ever had genetic counseling for cancer risk, ever discussed genetic testing for cancer risk with a provider, and ever had genetic testing for cancer risk). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of familial cancer risk and other demographic and health variables with genetic services. Most women (87.67%) in this study were at low risk based on self-reported family history of breast and ovarian cancer, 10.65% were at medium risk, and 1.68% were at high risk. Overall, very small numbers of individuals had ever had genetic counseling (2.78%), discussed genetic testing with their physician (4.55%) or had genetic testing (1.64%). Across all genetic services outcomes, individuals who were at higher familial risk were more likely to have had genetic counseling than those at lower risk (high risk: aOR = 5.869, 95% CI = 2.911-11.835; medium risk: aOR = 4.121, 95% CI = 2.934-5.789), discussed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 5.133, 95% CI = 2.699-9.764; medium risk: aOR = 3.649, 95% CI = 2.696-4.938), and completed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 8.531, 95% CI = 3.666-19.851; medium risk aOR = 3.057, 95% CI = 1.835-5.094). Those who perceived themselves as being more likely to develop cancer than the average woman were more likely to engage in genetic counseling (aOR = 1.916, 95% CI = 1.334-2.752), discuss genetic testing (aOR = 3.314, 95% CI = 2.463-4.459) or have had genetic testing (aOR = 1.947, 95% CI = 1.13-3.54). Personal cancer history was also a significant predictor of likelihood to have engaged in genetic services. Our findings highlight: (1) potential under-utilization of cancer genetic services among high risk populations in the U.S. and (2) differences in genetic services use based on individual's characteristics such as self-reported familial risk, personal history, and beliefs about risk of cancer. These results align with other studies which have noted that awareness and use of genetic services are low in the general population and likely not reaching individuals who could benefit most from screening for inherited cancers. Efforts to promote public awareness of familial cancer risk may lead to better uptake of cancer genetic services.

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.

Mainstreamed genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer: first-year experience

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death for women in the UK. Up to 18% of cases can be attributed to germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2genes. Identifying patients who carry a BRCA mutation provides important information about potential response to treatment and eligibility for therapies such as poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Implementation of systematic genetic testing of patients with ovarian cancer via oncology clinics (mainstreamed genetic testing, MGT) is increasing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This service evaluation reports on the first year of MGT at a tertiary oncology centre in London, UK. In total, 122 patients with high-grade non-mucinous ovarian cancer underwent BRCA germline testing via MGT. Eighteen patients (14.8%) were found to carry a deleterious BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation. Four BRCA carriers did not meet previous criteria for genetic testing and would have been missed. Six BRCA carriers accessed PARP inhibitors post-MGT. Only 22% of patients with a variant of unknown significance (VUS) were referred to clinical genetics services.

CONCLUSIONS

MGT appears to be a feasible way of providing BRCA testing to patients with ovarian cancer. Greater clarity of how oncologists use VUS results is needed, as well as further research on psychosocial implications of MGT for patients with ovarian cancer, which may include somatic testing in the future.

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.

Creation and Implementation of an Environmental Scan to Assess Cancer Genetics Services at Three Oncology Care Settings

An environmental scan (ES) is an efficient mixed-methods approach to collect and interpret relevant data for strategic planning and project design. To date, the ES has not been used nor evaluated in the clinical cancer genetics setting. We created and implemented an ES to inform the design of a quality improvement (QI) project to increase the rates of adherence to national guidelines for cancer genetic counseling and genetic testing at three unique oncology care settings (OCS). The ES collected qualitative and quantitative data from reviews of internal processes, past QI efforts, the literature, and each OCS. The ES used a data collection form and semi-structured interviews to aid in data collection. The ES was completed within 6 months, and sufficient data were captured to identify opportunities and threats to the QI project's success, as well as potential barriers to, and facilitators of guideline-based cancer genetics services at each OCS. Previously unreported barriers were identified, including inefficient genetic counseling appointment scheduling processes and the inability to track referrals, genetics appointments, and genetic test results within electronic medical record systems. The ES was a valuable process for QI project planning at three OCS and may be used to evaluate genetics services in other settings.

Impact of an embedded genetic counselor on breast cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

We predicted that embedding a genetic counselor within our breast practice would improve identification of high-risk individuals, timeliness of care, and appropriateness of surgical decision making. The aim of this study is to compare cancer care between 2012 and 2014, prior to embedding a genetic counselor in the breast center and following the intervention, respectively.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients diagnosed with breast cancer in 2012 (n = 471) and 2014 (n = 440) was performed to assess patterns of medical genetics referral, compliance with referral, genetic testing findings, and impact on treatment.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2014, patients were 49% more likely to be referred to genetics, 66% more likely to follow through with their genetic counseling appointment, experienced a 73% reduction in wait times to genetic counseling visits and 69% more likely to have genetic testing results prior to surgery. Notably, while the number of genetic mutations identified was in the expected range over both time periods (9% of those tested in 2012 vs. 6.6% of those tested in 2014), there was a 31% reduction in time to treatment in 2014 vs. 2012.

CONCLUSION

Awareness of germline genetic mutations is critical in surgical decision making for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Having an experienced genetics specialist on site in a busy surgical breast clinic allows for timely access to genetic counseling and testing, and may have influenced time to treatment in our institution.

Ovarian Cancer Prevention in High-risk Women

Ovarian carcinoma is the most lethal malignancy of the female genital tract. Population-based trials in the general population have not demonstrated that screening improves early detection or survival. Therefore, application of prevention strategies is vital to improving outcomes from this disease. Surgical prevention reduces risk and prophylactic risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is the most effective means to prevent ovarian carcinoma in the high-risk patient although the risks do not outweigh the benefits in average risk patients. Other surgical and medical options have unknown or limited efficacy in the high-risk patient. In this review, we define the patient at high risk for ovarian cancer, discuss how to identify these women and weigh their available ovarian cancer prevention strategies.

Missed therapeutic and prevention opportunities in women with BRCA-mutated epithelial ovarian cancer and their families due to low referral rates for genetic counseling and BRCA testing: A review of the literature

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Fifteen percent of women with epithelial ovarian cancer have inherited mutations in the BRCA breast cancer susceptibility genes. Knowledge of her BRCA status has value both for the woman and for her family. A therapeutic benefit exists for the woman with cancer, because a new family of oral drugs, the poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, has recently been approved, and these drugs have the greatest efficacy in women who carry the mutation. For her family, there is the potential to prevent ovarian cancer in those carrying the mutation by using risk-reducing surgery. Such surgery significantly reduces the chance of developing this, for the most part, incurable cancer. Despite these potential benefits, referral rates for genetic counseling and subsequent BRCA testing are low, ranging from 10% to 30%, indicating that these therapeutic and prevention opportunities are being missed. The authors have reviewed the relevant available literature. Topics discussed are BRCA and its relation to ovarian cancer, the rates of referral for genetic counseling/BRCA testing, reasons for these low rates, potential strategies to improve on those rates, lack of effectiveness of current screening strategies, the pros and cons of risk-reducing surgery, other prevention options, and the role and value of PARP inhibitors. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:493-506. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

National Estimates of Genetic Testing in Women With a History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer

Purpose In the United States, 3.8 million women have a history of breast (BC) or ovarian cancer (OC). Up to 15% of cases are attributable to heritable mutations, which, if identified, provide critical knowledge for treatment and preventive care. It is unknown how many patients who are at high risk for these mutations have not been tested and how rates vary by risk criteria. Methods We used pooled cross-sectional data from three Cancer Control Modules (2005, 2010, 2015) of the National Health Interview Survey, a national in-person household interview survey. Eligible patients were adult females with a history of BC and/or OC meeting select 2017 National Comprehensive Cancer Network eligibility criteria on the basis of age of diagnosis and family history. Outcomes included the proportion of individuals reporting a history of discussing genetic testing with a health professional, being advised to undergo genetic testing, or undergoing genetic testing for BC or OC. Results Of 47,218 women, 2.7% had a BC history and 0.4% had an OC history. For BC, 35.6% met one or more select eligibility criteria; of those, 29.0% discussed, 20.2% were advised to undergo, and 15.3% underwent genetic testing. Testing rates for individual eligibility criteria ranged from 6.2% (relative with OC) to 18.2% (diagnosis ≤ 45 years of age). For OC, 15.1% discussed, 13.1% were advised to undergo, and 10.5% underwent testing. Using only four BC eligibility criteria and all patients with OC, an estimated 1.2 to 1.3 million individuals failed to receive testing. Conclusion Fewer than one in five individuals with a history of BC or OC meeting select National Cancer Comprehensive Network criteria have undergone genetic testing. Most have never discussed testing with a health care provider. Large national efforts are warranted to address this unmet need.

Adherence Patterns to National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for Referral of Women With Breast Cancer to Genetics Professionals

OBJECTIVE

Genetic predisposition is responsible for 5% to 10% of breast cancer. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) established guidelines delineating appropriate candidates for genetic counseling. This study aims to determine referral patterns for genetic counseling in women who met such guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Utilizing an institutional tumor registry, patients from an academic oncology program who met a subset of NCCN guidelines for genetic referrals between 2004 and 2010 were identified (breast cancer diagnosis ≤50 y without a known BRCA mutation). A retrospective chart review was conducted. Statistics were analyzed using SAS version 9.2.

RESULTS

A total of 314 patients were identified and 107 (34.1%) were referred for genetic counseling. Median age at diagnosis was younger for those referred versus not referred (43 and 46 y; P<0.0001). Women were more likely referred with a family history suspicious for an inherited cancer syndrome (67.3% vs. 36.2%; P<0.0001). There was no difference in stage at diagnosis, insurance, or race among women referred. Those patients who choose prophylactic contralateral mastectomy were likely to have been referred for genetic counseling (63.6% vs. 36.4%, P<0.0001). Among patients referred, 77.6% consulted with a genetics counselor, 95.2% underwent genetic testing, and 16.5% had a BRCA mutation.

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic counseling and testing is being underutilized in women who meet NCCN referral guidelines. Age and family history were noted to be predictive of referral for genetic evaluation. Further research is needed to determine additional factors that may impact not only referral rates but subsequent care for women with possible genetic predispositions to cancer.

A universal genetic testing initiative for patients with high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer and the implications for cancer treatment

OBJECTIVE

Genetic counseling (GC) and germline genetic testing (GT) for BRCA1 and BRCA2 are considered standard of care for patients with high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers (HGOC). We describe a universal genetic testing initiative to increase the rates of recommendation and acceptance of GC and GT to >80% for patients with HGOC at our institution.

METHODS

Data from a consecutive cohort of patients seen in our gynecologic oncology clinics between 9/1/2012 and 8/31/2015 for evaluation of HGOC were retrospectively analyzed. Data were abstracted from the tumor registry, medical records, and research databases. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate patient characteristics and GC, GT, and PARP inhibitor use. Various clinic interventions were developed, influenced by the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle method, which included physician-coordinated GT, integrated GC, and assisted GC referrals.

RESULTS

A cohort of 1636 patients presented to the gynecologic oncology clinics for evaluation of HGOC during our study period, and 1423 (87.0%) were recommended to have GC and GT. Of these, 1214 (85.3%) completed GT and 217 (17.9%) were found to have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Among BRCA-positive patients, 167 had recurrent or progressive disease, and 56 of those received PARP inhibitor therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of GC and GT recommendation and completion among patients with HGOC at our institution exceeded 80% following the implementation of a universal genetic testing initiative. Universal genetic testing of patients with HGOC is one strategy to identify those who may benefit from PARP inhibitor therapy.

Traceback: A Proposed Framework to Increase Identification and Genetic Counseling of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Through Family-Based Outreach

In May 2016, the Division of Cancer Prevention and the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, convened a workshop to discuss a conceptual framework for identifying and genetically testing previously diagnosed but unreferred patients with ovarian cancer and other unrecognized BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers to improve the detection of families at risk for breast or ovarian cancer. The concept, designated Traceback, was prompted by the recognition that although BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are frequent in women with ovarian cancer, many such women have not been tested, especially if their diagnosis predated changes in testing guidelines. The failure to identify mutation carriers among probands represents a lost opportunity to prevent cancer in unsuspecting relatives through risk-reduction intervention in mutation carriers and to provide appropriate reassurances to noncarriers. The Traceback program could provide an important opportunity to reach families from racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups who historically have not sought or been offered genetic counseling and testing and thereby contribute to a reduction in health disparities in women with germline BRCA mutations. To achieve an interdisciplinary perspective, the workshop assembled international experts in genetics, medical and gynecologic oncology, clinical psychology, epidemiology, genomics, cost-effectiveness modeling, pathology, bioethics, and patient advocacy to identify factors to consider when undertaking a Traceback program. This report highlights the workshop deliberations with the goal of stimulating research and providing a framework for pilot studies to assess the feasibility and ethical and logistical considerations related to the development of best practices for implementation of Traceback studies.

Increasing Appropriate BRCA1/2 Mutation Testing: The Role of Family History Documentation and Genetic Counseling in a Multidisciplinary Clinic

BACKGROUND

Findings show that 5-10 % of women with a diagnosis of breast cancer (BCa) have actionable genetic mutations. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for testing to detect BRCA1/2 mutations include personal history (PH) variables such as age of 45 years or younger and a family history (FH) variables. Rates of FH documentation and overall rates of appropriate referral for genetic testing are low, ranging from about 30 to 60 %. The authors hypothesized that an upfront FH documentation and inclusion of a genetics counselor in a multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) setting would increase rates of appropriate referral for genetic testing.

METHODS

The study enrolled 609 consecutive women with non-metastatic BCa seen in consultation between June 2012 and December 2015 at a multidisciplinary clinic. Rates of FH documentation and referral for genetic testing to detect BRCA1/2 mutations were assessed before and after inclusion of a genetic counselor in the MDC.

RESULTS

The rates of FH documentation and appropriate referral were 100 and 89 %, respectively. Half (50 %) of the patients had only FH-based indications for testing. All the patients with PH-based indications were referred. The inclusion of a genetic counselor significantly increased appropriate referral rates among those with only FH-based indications (62 vs. 92 %) and overall (80 vs. 96 %) (p < 0.0001 for both). Among the 12 % of the patients with actionable mutations, 60 % were 45 years of age or younger, whereas 30 % had only FH-based testing indications.

CONCLUSIONS

This report shows substantially higher FH documentation and appropriate genetic testing rates than prior reports. Many patients with indications for genetic testing may have only FH-based indications for testing, and this subset may account for the sizable proportion of patients with newly diagnosed BCa who have actionable mutations.

Germline BRCA1/2 mutation testing is indicated in every patient with epithelial ovarian cancer: A systematic review

The presence of a germline BRCA1/2 mutation improves options for tailored risk-reducing strategies and treatment in both breast and ovarian cancer patients and their relatives. Currently, referral for germline BRCA1/2 mutation testing of women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) varies widely, based on different criteria, such as age of onset, family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer and histological type of EOC. The overall probability of a germline BRCA1/2 mutation in women with EOC is above 10%, and a substantial part of the germline BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is missed when applying these criteria for referral. Therefore, we strongly recommend referral of all women with EOC for genetic counselling and DNA analysis.

Current Status of the Management of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in Asia: First Report by the Asian BRCA Consortium

BACKGROUND

BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations are associated with an increased lifetime risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Compared with the Western developed countries, genetic testing and risk assessment for HBOC in Asia are less available, thus prohibiting the appropriate surveillance, clinical strategies and cancer management.

METHODS

The current status of HBOC management in 14 Asian countries, including genetic counselling/testing uptakes and clinical management options, was reviewed. We analysed how economic factors, healthcare and legal frameworks, and cultural issues affect the genetic service availability in Asia.

RESULTS

In 2012, only an estimated 4,000 breast cancer cases from 14 Asian countries have benefited from genetic services. Genetic testing costs and the absence of their adoption into national healthcare systems are the main economic barriers for approaching genetic services. Training programmes, regional accredited laboratories and healthcare professionals are not readily available in most of the studied countries. A lack of legal frameworks against genetic discrimination and a lack of public awareness of cancer risk assessment also provide challenges to HBOC management in Asia.

CONCLUSIONS

The Asian BRCA Consortium reports the current disparities in genetic services for HBOC in Asia and urges the policy makers, healthcare sectors and researchers to address the limitations in HBOC management.

Adherence patterns to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for referral to cancer genetic professionals

OBJECTIVE

Genetic predisposition is responsible for 5-10% of breast cancer, 10% of ovarian cancer and 2-5% of uterine cancer. The study objective was to compare genetic counseling and testing referral rates among women with breast cancer that met NCCN referral guidelines to the referral rates among women with gynecologic cancers and determine predictors of referral.

METHODS

Utilizing an institutional tumor registry database, patients from an academic women's oncology program were identified who met a subset of NCCN guidelines for genetic referral between 2004 and 2010. Patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer, breast cancer ≤50years of age, or uterine cancer <50years of age were included. A retrospective electronic chart review was conducted to evaluate for a genetic referral and uptake of genetic testing.

RESULTS

820 women were included (216 uterine, 314 breast, and 290 ovarian cancer). The overall genetic referral rate was 21.7%. 34% of eligible breast cancer patients were referred compared to 13.4% of uterine cancer and 14.5% of ovarian cancer patients (p<0.0001). Younger age, breast cancer diagnosis, family history and earlier stage were all significant referral predictors. The odds of being referred increased with the number of affected family members. 70.8% of referred patients, consulted with genetics. Among those who consulted with genetics, 95.2% underwent testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Although increasing, genetic counseling remains underutilized across cancer diagnosis. Women with breast cancer are more likely to be referred than women with gynecologic cancers. Younger age, earlier stage and positive family history appear to be predictive of referral for genetic evaluation.

Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations for the prevention of ovarian cancer

Mortality from ovarian cancer may be dramatically reduced with the implementation of attainable prevention strategies. The new understanding of the cells of origin and the molecular etiology of ovarian cancer warrants a strong recommendation to the public and health care providers. This document discusses potential prevention strategies, which include 1) oral contraceptive use, 2) tubal sterilization, 3) risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women at high hereditary risk of breast and ovarian cancer, 4) genetic counseling and testing for women with ovarian cancer and other high-risk families, and 5) salpingectomy after childbearing is complete (at the time of elective pelvic surgeries, at the time of hysterectomy, and as an alternative to tubal ligation). The Society of Gynecologic Oncology has determined that recent scientific breakthroughs warrant a new summary of the progress toward the prevention of ovarian cancer. This review is intended to emphasize the importance of the fallopian tubes as a potential source of high-grade serous cancer in women with and without known genetic mutations in addition to the use of oral contraceptive pills to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer.

What hinders minority ethnic access to cancer genetics services and what may help?

Ethnic disparities in use of cancer genetics services raise concerns about equitable opportunity to benefit from familial cancer risk assessment, improved survival and quality of life. This paper considers available research to explore what may hinder or facilitate minority ethnic access to cancer genetics services. We sought to inform service development for people of South Asian, African or Irish origin at risk of familial breast, ovarian, colorectal and prostate cancers in the UK. Relevant studies from the UK, North America and Australasia were identified from six electronic research databases. Current evidence is limited but suggests low awareness and understanding of familial cancer risk among minority ethnic communities studied. Socio-cultural variations in beliefs, notably stigma about cancer or inherited risk of cancer, are identified. These factors may affect seeking of advice from providers and disparities in referral. Achieving effective cross-cultural communication in the complex contexts of both cancer and genetics counselling, whether between individuals and providers, when mediated by third party interpreters, or within families, pose further challenges. Some promising experience of facilitating minority ethnic access has been gained by introduction of culturally sensitive provider and counselling initiatives, and by enabling patient self-referral. However, further research to inform and assess these interventions, and others that address the range of challenges identified for cancer genetics services are needed. This should be based on a more comprehensive understanding of what happens at differing points of access and interaction at community, cancer care and genetic service levels.