scholarly journals A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Consent for Genetic Testing Using an Oncologist-or Genetic Counselor-Mediated Model of Care

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 1459-1471
Author(s):  
Jeanna M McCuaig ◽  
Emily Thain ◽  
Janet Malcolmson ◽  
Sareh Keshavarzi ◽  
Susan Randall Armel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Genetic Counselor ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Breast And Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Post Test

This study compares knowledge, experience and understanding of genetic testing, and psychological outcomes among breast and ovarian cancer patients undergoing multi-gene panel testing via genetic counselor-mediated (GMT) or oncologist-mediated (OMT) testing models. A pragmatic, prospective survey of breast and ovarian cancer patients pursuing genetic testing between January 2017 and August 2019 was conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada. A total of 120 (80 GMT; 40 OMT) individuals completed a survey administered one week following consent to genetic testing. Compared to OMT, the GMT cohort had higher median knowledge (8 vs. 9; p = 0.025) and experience/understanding scores (8.5 vs. 10; p < 0.001) at the time of genetic testing. Significant differences were noted in the potential psychological concerns experienced, with individuals in the GMT cohort more likely to screen positive in the hereditary predisposition domain of the Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer tool (55% vs. 27.5%; p = 0.005), and individuals in the OMT cohort more likely to screen positive in the general emotions domain (65.0% vs. 38.8%; p = 0.007). The results of this study suggest that OMT can be implemented to streamline genetic testing; however, post-test genetic counseling should remain available to all individuals undergoing genetic testing, to ensure any psychologic concerns are addressed and that individuals have a clear understanding of relevant implications and limitations of their test results.

scholarly journals Gene-panel testing of breast and ovarian cancer patients identifies a recurrentRAD51Cduplication

2018 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
L.M. Pelttari ◽  
H. Shimelis ◽  
H. Toiminen ◽  
A. Kvist ◽  
T. Törngren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Breast And Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Gene Panel Testing

BRCA1/2 and multigene panel testing among metastatic breast, pancreas, prostate, and ovarian cancer patients.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13160-e13160
Author(s):  
Meghna S. Trivedi ◽  
VanAnh L Vo ◽  
Tarsha Jones ◽  
Thomas Silverman ◽  
Wendy Chung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Metastatic Cancer ◽  
Genetic Counselor ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Multigene Panel Testing ◽  
Multigene Panel

e13160 Background: Given the availability of targeted therapies such as PARP inhibitors, patients with metastatic breast, pancreas, prostate, and ovarian cancer are recommended to have germline genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes. Completion of genetic testing among this population is understudied. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 548 patients with stage 4 breast, pancreas, prostate, and ovarian cancer at diagnosis from January 2013-December 2017 identified in the New York Presbyterian Hospital Tumor Registry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Data on socio-demographics, clinical factors, and genetic testing completion and results were collected from the medical record. We conducted descriptive statistics. Results: Our study population had a median age of 66 years (range, 23-97) at diagnosis; 61% female; 50% non-Hispanic white/22% Hispanic/15% non-Hispanic black/5% Asian/7% other; 33% private insurance/16% Medicaid/44% Medicare/7% unknown insurance. Primary cancer was 24% breast, 8% ovary, 61% pancreas, and 7% prostate. Only 38 patients were seen by a genetic counselor (7%) and only 50 (9%) had genetic testing performed. Among those who underwent germline testing, 92% had multigene panel testing (median number of genes tested 13.5, range 2-74). Pathogenic variants were detected in 6 patients (12%), of which 4 had a BRCA1/2 mutation, and 26% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). Conclusions: We found that only a small percentage of metastatic breast, pancreas, prostate, and ovarian cancer patients underwent genetic testing. Further research is necessary to identify the barriers to genetic testing uptake in metastatic cancer patients. BRCA1/2 and multigene panel testing has important implications in this patient population not only for treatment decisions, but also to increase cascade testing in unaffected family members who may be at risk for malignancy in the future.

The impact of live education on the competence and performance of oncology practitioners who care for patients with ovarian cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23010-e23010
Author(s):  
Vanessa Carranza ◽  
Bryan Carson Taylor ◽  
Susan H. Gitzinger ◽  
Joan B. Fowler ◽  
Jessica Hall
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Inhibitor Therapy ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Educational Initiatives ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Chi Square Analysis

e23010 Background: About a third of ovarian cancer patients in the US have limited access to a gynecologic oncologist (GO) due to geographic disparities. A survey by The Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) found that the majority of GOs found it was vital to coordinate local access to care, from diagnosis to survivorship, for patients living in areas of disparity. This allows rural/underserved patients broader access to novel therapies, as they increasingly become standard of care. It is critical for not only GOs to be current on the latest ovarian cancer data, but all clinicians who care for these patients. Methods: CEC Oncology developed two educational initiatives focused on PARP inhibitor therapy in ovarian cancer, which was targeted to all US healthcare professionals caring for ovarian cancer patients. Evaluations were collected from attendees attending an SGO Symposium and Ground Round (GR) series to assess impact on practice, increased competency, and intent to make a change in practice. Learning, knowledge, and competence was objectively assessed by analyzing pre-test, post-test, and follow-up survey data (sent 4-6 weeks post-activity). Chi-square analysis was conducted with a priori significance set at 0.05. Results: A total of 830 clinicians were educated, with SGO attendees primarily practicing in academic settings and GR attendees mostly from community practices. SGO attendees were asked case questions at baseline, immediately after the activity, and 4-6 weeks after the activity. Knowledge increased from pre- to post-test regarding current genetic testing recommendations (23% increase; P= .004) and appropriate selection of PARP inhibitor therapy (25% increase; P= .017). Knowledge was sustained at follow-up analysis. At follow-up, 90% of SGO and 84% of GR attendees made a change as a result of attending the activities. More attendees were able to incorporate germline multigene testing into practice, than originally intended; increase of 29% for SGO and 7% for GR audiences. All attendees experienced the barrier lack of patient education about the importance of genetic testing/counseling more than anticipated; increase of 7% for SGO and 13% for GR audiences. At follow-up, there was a 9% increase in GR attendees listing staying current with trial data and practice guidelines as a barrier. Conclusions: There were some notable differences seen in competence/performance among attendees of the two ovarian cancer educational initiatives. Differences may be attributed to practice setting (SGO primarily academic; GR primarily community.) Overall, GR attendees were more likely to face barriers, suggesting that community-based clinicians have fewer resources and experience more barriers to implementing best practices. Thus, it is vital to offer education for clinicians in community-based practices, particularly in areas that are considered ‘geographically disparate’.

Clinical impact of multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1513-1513
Author(s):  
Leif W. Ellisen ◽  
Allison W. Kurian ◽  
Andrea J Desmond ◽  
Meredith Mills ◽  
Stephen E Lincoln ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Clinical Impact ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Cancer Risk Assessment ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk ◽  
Breast And Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Gene Panel Testing

Impact of hereditary multigene panel testing for cancer survivors.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 261-261
Author(s):  
Nimmi S. Kapoor ◽  
Jennifer Swisher ◽  
Rachel E. McFarland ◽  
Mychael Patrick ◽  
Lisa D. Curcio
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Gene Mutation ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Personal History ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Mutations ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
History Of

261 Background: Recently, genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes has seen numerous advances in testing spectrum, capability, and efficiency. This may have important implications for cancer survivors and their families. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of reflex genetic testing with newer multi-gene panels on patients with prior negative BRCA1/2 tests. Methods: Data was collected retrospectively from patients who underwent multi-gene panel testing at one of three sites from a single institution between 8/2013-6/2015. Those with a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer and a prior negative BRCA1/2 test were included. Results: Of 914 patients who underwent multi-gene panel tests, 187 met study inclusion criteria. Ten patients (5.3%) were found to carry 11 pathogenic mutations, including 6 patients with mutations in CHEK2, 2 patients with mutations in PTEN, and 1 patient each with mutations in the following genes: BARD1, NF1, and RAD51C. One patient had two pathogenic mutations identified—CHEK2 and BARD1. Of 10 patients with mutations, 9 had a personal history of breast cancer diagnosed at a median age of 43 (range 35-52) and 1 had ovarian cancer diagnosed at age 65. A majority of mutation carriers underwent panel testing years after their cancer diagnosis (median 6 years, range 0.5-32 years) and none with delayed testing had undergone prophylactic contralateral mastectomy prior to the discovery of their gene mutation. All patients with mutations had a family history of at least one cancer, with most having a variety of cancer diagnoses in multiple relatives. Positive panel testing results altered clinical management in most patients, including addition of breast MRI, colonoscopy, or thyroid ultrasound depending on the gene mutation. After discovery of a PTEN mutation 19 years after her initial cancer treatment, one woman underwent bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and was found to have occult ductal carcinoma in situ. Conclusions: Cancer survivorship must incorporate advances in technology that may be beneficial even years after treatment has ended. Multi-gene panel testing can be applied in survivorship settings as a useful tool to guide screening recommendations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document