Underutilization of germline BRCA testing in commercially-insured women diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5539-5539
Author(s):  
Stephanie Cham ◽  
Alexi A. Wright
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Charlson Score ◽  
Brca Testing ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Lower Test ◽  
Few Data ◽  
Oncology Providers

5539 Background: Germline BRCA (gBRCA) testing has prognostic, therapeutic, and familial implications for patients with ovarian cancer. Since 2010, national guidelines have recommended universal genetic testing, but few data are available about rates and timeliness of testing or factors associated with testing. Methods: We examined rates of gBRCA testing and the time from index procedure to testing among commercially-insured women aged 18 to 64 with claims for ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancers cancer who received cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy between 2008-2018. We used logistic regression to assess patient-, clinician-, and practice-level characteristics associated with testing. Results: Overall, the rate of g BRCA testing was 33.9%, increasing from 14.7% in 2008 to 46.4% in 2018; the median time to testing decreased from 280.0 to 72.5 days. Patients who were tested were younger than those who were not (mean [SD] 54.7 [9.9] years vs. 58.1 [11.8] years, P<.001) and had fewer comorbidities (Charlson score ≥2: 3.7% vs. 9.5%, P=0.01). There were no differences in testing rates by US region, rurality of practice location, or medical vs. gynecologic oncology providers. However, testing rates were higher in academic and NCI-designated cancer centers (36.2% and 32.5%, respectively), compared with community practices (25.5%; P<0.001) (Table). In adjusted analyses, lower test rates were associated with older age (aOR=0.97, 95%CI=0.96-0.98), more medical comorbidities (Charlson score ≥2: aOR=0.77, 95%CI=0.61-0.97), and community practices vs. NCI cancer centers (aOR=0.64, 95%CI=0.46-0.88). Conclusions: While the rates and time to testing for gBRCA in patients with new diagnoses of ovarian cancer have improved over time, testing remains underutilized, even among well-insured populations. Future studies should examine barriers to timely genetic testing and identify scalable strategies for increasing testing in women with ovarian cancer, particularly for women treated in community practices.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Implementing rapid, robust, cost-effective, patient-centred, routine genetic testing in ovarian cancer patients

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela George ◽  
Daniel Riddell ◽  
Sheila Seal ◽  
Sabrina Talukdar ◽  
Shazia Mahamdallie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Brca Mutation ◽  
Genomic Medicine ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Brca Testing ◽  
Clinical Genetic ◽  
Gene Testing

SUMMARYBackground:Advances in DNA sequencing have made gene testing fast and affordable, but adaptation of clinical services to capitalise on this for patient benefit has been slow. Ovarian cancer exemplifies limitations of current systems and potential benefits of increased gene testing. Approximately 15% of ovarian cancer patients have a germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (collectively termed ‘BRCA’) and this has substantial implications for their personal management and that of their relatives. However, in most countries implementation of BRCA testing in ovarian cancer has been inconsistent and largely unsuccessful.Methods:We developed a mainstream pathway in which BRCA testing was undertaken by cancer team members after 30 minutes online training. Patients with a mutation were sent a genetic appointment with their results. Cascade testing to relatives was performed via standard clinical genetic procedures.Findings:207 women with ovarian cancer were offered gene testing through the mainstream pathway and all accepted. 33 (16%) had a BRCA mutation. The result informed management of 79% (121/154) women with active disease including 97% (32/33) women with a mutation. All mutation-positive women and ~3.5 relatives per family have been seen in genetics. Patient and clinician feedback was very positive. >95% found the pathway to be simple and effective. The pathway offers considerable reduction in time (~5-fold) and resource requirements (~13-fold) compared to the traditional genetic pathway. We estimate it would deliver £2.6M NHS cost savings per year, and would allow implementation of national testing recommendations with existing infrastructure.Interpretation:Mainstream genetic testing is effective, efficient and patient-centred and offers a mechanism for large-scale implementation of BRCA gene testing in cancer patients. The principles could be applied in many other countries and to many other areas of genomic medicine.

Assessing comprehensive care deficits in United States (U.S.) ovarian cancer programs to inform quality improvement initiatives.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 256-256
Author(s):  
Matthew Smeltzer ◽  
Monique Dawkins ◽  
Leigh Boehmer ◽  
Sarah Madhu Temkin ◽  
Premal H. Thaker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Genetic Counseling ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Multidisciplinary Team ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Financial Counseling ◽  
Testing And Counseling

256 Background: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer mortality in the US. Given the high burden of disease and complexities in the provision of quality care, a multidisciplinary team approach is critical to optimal care delivery. In 2019, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) launched a multiphase, stakeholder-driven initiative to improve care for this patient population. Results of a national survey of cancer programs to identify the needs of patients are reported here. Methods: A 20 question survey was developed by an expert steering committee including gynecologic oncologists, pathologists, genetic counselors, a nurse navigator, and cancer center administrators. The instrument was designed to collect data about cancer programs, key ovarian cancer patient needs, and barriers to and opportunities for improving ovarian cancer care. The online survey was open for participation for 4 weeks using the Qualtrics platform and distributed via email to ACCC and Society of Gynecologic Oncology members. Results: We received 26 total responses from Comprehensive Community (26%), NCI-Designed Comprehensive (22%), Academic Comprehensive (22%), and Integrated Network (13%) Cancer Programs. Annual ovarian cancer cases ranged from 22 to 190 (median: 50.5). 85% of programs has a multidisciplinary team for ovarian cancer and 61% were part of a referral network. On average, programs has 1.5 phase II and 2 phase III clinical trials currently available for ovarian cancer (all programs had at least 1 trial available). Palliative care and comprehensive symptom management was integrated into the first appointment (15%), integrated at the time of recurrence (4%), and most frequently, available by consult (81%). We assessed genetic testing practices at each program. Aggregated across programs, 79% of patients received germline multipanel testing, 71% germline BRCA only, 50% somatic multigene, and 51% somatic BRCA only. The frequency of consultations included: genetic counseling (75%), nurse navigation (75%), social work (50%), dietetics (40%), financial counseling (25%). Genetic evaluations were typically ordered by Gynecologic Oncology (88%), genetic counseling (4%), or both (8%). When asked what topic they would choose for a quality improvement project, genetic testing and counseling was the most frequent choice (46%), followed by clinical trials enrollment and availability (23%), multidisciplinary team care (19%), education on best practices (15%), palliative care (15%), and ancillary services (15%). Conclusions: Multidisciplinary care for ovarian cancer was common across a range of cancer programs but integration of palliative care, social work, dietetics, and financial counseling could be improved. Expanding clinical trials and genetic testing and counseling were the most frequently identified opportunities to improve ovarian cancer care.

Patterns of genetic profiling for ovarian cancer among gynecologic oncology providers

2020 ◽  
Vol 159 ◽  
pp. 259
Author(s):  
A.R. Mallen ◽  
K. Cline ◽  
B. Cao ◽  
H.R. Williams ◽  
M.H. Vetter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Genetic Profiling ◽  
Oncology Providers

scholarly journals Mainstreaming Genetic Testing for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer by Oncology Providers: A Survey of Current Practice

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan A. Czekalski ◽  
Rachelle C. Huziak ◽  
Andrea L. Durst ◽  
Sarah Taylor ◽  
Phuong L. Mai
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Epithelial Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Insurance Coverage ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Timely Access ◽  
Poor Treatment ◽  
Testing Practices ◽  
Oncology Providers ◽  
Cancer Network

PURPOSE With limitations in early detection and poor treatment response, ovarian cancer is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Up to 25% of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is related to a hereditary predisposition. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend that all individuals diagnosed with EOC be offered germline genetic testing. Although this would ideally be performed by genetics professionals, a shortage of genetic counselors can affect timely access to these services. This study sought to investigate the current genetic testing practices of oncology providers to determine the feasibility of oncologist-led genetic testing for patients with EOC. METHODS A survey was distributed to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists with questions regarding timing, frequency, and type of cancer genetic testing, referrals to genetics professionals, confidence with aspects of genetic testing, and any barriers to these processes. RESULTS We received 170 evaluable responses. Eighty-five percent of providers always ordered genetic testing for patients with EOC. Most providers ordered germline multigene panel testing (95.8%), generally at diagnosis (64.5%). Provider confidence with the genetic testing process was generally high and significantly differed by providers' testing practices, namely, respondents who reported always ordering genetic testing tended to be more confident in ordering testing ( P = .008), interpreting results ( P = .005), and counseling a patient ( P = .002). Patient disinterest and concerns for insurance coverage were commonly cited as barriers to testing and referrals. CONCLUSION The findings from this study suggest that oncologist-led genetic testing for patients with EOC, with referrals to genetics professionals when appropriate, has the potential to be a viable alternative service delivery model to increase access to genetic testing for patients diagnosed with EOC.

Molecular testing patterns and implications for treatment at a cancer center.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13576-e13576
Author(s):  
Clarissa Lam ◽  
Adrianne Rose Mallen ◽  
Christine Marie Walko ◽  
Jing-Yi Chern
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Testing Patterns ◽  
Germline Testing

e13576 Background: Genetic testing has revolutionized the care of ovarian cancer, providing a potential for targeted therapies and cancer prevention through cascade testing. Previous historical control for genetic testing rate of 28.5% at our institution, this initiated a multilevel intervention to improve guideline concordant care. The main objective of this study is a descriptive analysis of genetic testing patterns with the implementation of a genetics tumor board (GTB) at an NCI comprehensive cancer center (CCC). Methods: All gynecologic oncology cancer patients who underwent somatic testing from 3/2019 to 1/2020 were included in gynecologic oncology GTB. A descriptive analysis was performed on the ovarian cancer patients. Information regarding patient demographics, cancer characteristics, treatment, and follow-up were obtained from the medical records. Results: There were a total of 81 patients included in GTB during this time period. Fifty-four of 81 (66.7%) received care at our CCC and 27 of 81 (33.3%) were seen as a second opinion case. The patients included in GTB were comprised of recurrent ovarian cancer cases and newly diagnosed ovarian cancer cases. Of the patients included in genetics tumor board, 58 of 81 (71.6%) of patients received both germline and somatic testing. Genetics referrals were placed for 16 of 23 (69%) of the patients who received somatic testing without subsequent germline testing. Twelve of 81 (14.8%) GTB patients were identified for clinical trials during this time period. Conclusions: Genetic testing has become a cornerstone to ovarian cancer care. Implementation of a genetics tumor board at our institution has increased rates of germline testing compared to historical controls. With genetic tumor board being made up of a third of patients seeking a second opinion, we are able to provide comprehensive care to such patients in the form of genetic counseling referrals and clinical trial opportunities. Genetics tumor board also appears to highlight the cohort of patients with the most aggressive cancers: high-grade, advanced stage, and high rates of recurrence. This can potentially improve care by providing an arena for a multidisciplinary discussion of our most complex patients. Ongoing studies with the implementation of our cancer pathways may help determine which modifiable factors can be targeted to help increase adherence to genetic testing recommendations as we continue to strive for guideline-based care.

An evaluation of gender discrepancies in genetic referrals for BRCA testing for indicated malignancies.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10584-10584
Author(s):  
Wesley Smith ◽  
Kayla Smith ◽  
William Sessions ◽  
Connor Evins ◽  
Michael Baker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Gender Gap ◽  
Genetic Screening ◽  
Metastatic Prostate Cancer ◽  
Brca Testing ◽  
Brca Mutations

10584 Background: Tumor suppressing genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 were discovered in 1990 and 1994, respectively, with mutations linked to hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndromes (HBOCs). The discovery of these mutations has led to screening of at-risk patient populations and their family members. Women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are generally recommended to have prophylactic bilateral mastectomies and oophorectomies to decrease their future risk of cancer. While the initial discovery mostly focused on cancers in women, research has shown that BRCA mutations increase the risk of other cancers such as prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer, that also affect men. Previous research suggests that men are three times less likely to receive genetic testing in cancer driven by a 10:1 disparity in HBOC genetic testing. This was thought to be due to the lack of information on the importance of HBOC testing along with social roles in health. We wanted to evaluate the magnitude of the potential gender gap in BRCA testing in men compared to women. Methods: This was an IRB-approved, single center retrospective study to evaluate the rate of referrals to genetics for BRCA testing. Eligible patients had a personal history of cancer meeting criteria for BRCA testing per NCCN recommendations. Chart review was performed for patients with ovarian cancer, female breast cancer 45 years and younger, female triple negative breast cancer 60 years and younger, metastatic prostate cancer, all male breast cancer that have made an office visit since 2017, and pancreatic cancer since 2019. Rates of referral for genetic testing was the primary outcome and the groups were compared via the Chi-Square test. Results: 1,320 patients were included in the study, of which 664 were men and 656 were women. 128/664 (19.3%) of men were referred to genetics for screening compared to 527/656 (80.3%) for women ( p <.001). Additionally, 42/128 (32.8%) men who were referred for screening did not complete genetic screening compared to 72/527 (13.7%) women ( p <.001). A total of 62/541 (11.5%) patients who completed screening had either a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Conclusions: In our study, men were referred for BRCA testing significantly less than women for primary cancers, despite recommendation from the NCCN. In addition, men were also more than twice as likely not to complete genetic screening even if referred. The integration of genetics and oncology will continue to grow as personalized medicine continues to drive more treatment options. Closing this gender gap is important not only for familial screening purposes but also for treatment implications as patients with germline BRCA mutations are eligible for poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (e.g. olaparib) in both metastatic prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer. Further quality improvement initiatives are needed in order to close this gap by increasing education of the importance of BRCA testing in men.

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

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (34) ◽  
pp. 3800-3806 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Childers ◽  
Kimberly K. Childers ◽  
Melinda Maggard-Gibbons ◽  
James Macinko
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Age Of Diagnosis ◽  
History Of ◽  
Interview Survey

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.

scholarly journals Assessing Genetic Variants in Matched Biocompartments From Patients With Serous Ovarian Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 153303382110279
Author(s):  
Brooke E. Sanders ◽  
Lisa Ku ◽  
Paul Walker ◽  
Benjamin G. Bitler
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Variants ◽  
Mutant Allele ◽  
Serous Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Brca Testing ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
University Of Colorado ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
The University ◽  
Tumor Profiling

The clinical use of molecular tumor profiling (MTP) is expanding and there is an increasing use of MTP data to manage patient care. At the University of Colorado, 18 patients were diagnosed with primary serous ovarian cancer between 9/2015 and 6/2019 and consented for banking and analysis of tumor, ascites and plasma. All 18 patients had tumor and plasma samples that were sent for MTP, and 13 of 18 patients additionally had ascites collected and sent for MTP. 50-gene panel testing and BRCA testing were performed on primary tumor. BRCA genetic variants were more likely to be identified in plasma as compared to ascites or tumor, though not statistically significant ( P = 0.17). Co-occurring genetic variants between plasma and ascites were less common in comparison to co-occurring variants between tumor and plasma or tumor and ascites, though not statistically significant ( P = 0.68). Variants in KDR (VEGFR2) and TP53 were most likely to be conserved across all 3 biocompartments. Mutant allele frequencies (MAF) of individual genetic variants varied across biocompartments, though tended to be highest in the tumor, followed by ascites.

scholarly journals Feasibility and Assessment of a Cascade Traceback Screening Program (FACTS): Protocol for a Multisite Study to Implement and Assess an Ovarian Cancer Traceback Cascade Testing Program

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 543
Author(s):  
Anna DiNucci ◽  
Nora B. Henrikson ◽  
M. Cabell Jonas ◽  
Sundeep Basra ◽  
Paula Blasi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Genetic Privacy ◽  
Program Outcomes ◽  
Cascade Testing ◽  
Program Costs

Ovarian cancer (OVCA) patients may carry genes conferring cancer risk to biological family; however, fewer than one-quarter of patients receive genetic testing. “Traceback” cascade testing —outreach to potential probands and relatives—is a possible solution. This paper outlines a funded study (U01 CA240747-01A1) seeking to determine a Traceback program’s feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and costs. This is a multisite prospective observational feasibility study across three integrated health systems. Informed by the Conceptual Model for Implementation Research, we will outline, implement, and evaluate the outcomes of an OVCA Traceback program. We will use standard legal research methodology to review genetic privacy statutes; engage key stakeholders in qualitative interviews to design communication strategies; employ descriptive statistics and regression analyses to evaluate the site differences in genetic testing and the OVCA Traceback testing; and assess program outcomes at the proband, family member, provider, system, and population levels. This study aims to determine a Traceback program’s feasibility and acceptability in a real-world context. It will account for the myriad factors affecting implementation, including legal issues, organizational- and individual-level barriers and facilitators, communication issues, and program costs. Project results will inform how health care providers and systems can develop effective, practical, and sustainable Traceback programs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document