QIM21-087: Genetic Testing of Newly Diagnosed Ovarian Cancer Patients in a Regional Cancer Center in Appalachia

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (3.5) ◽  
pp. QIM21-087
Author(s):  
Hassaan Jafri ◽  
Isna Khan ◽  
Nadim Bou Zgheib
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Newly Diagnosed

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.

scholarly journals BRCA1/2 testing in newly diagnosed breast and ovarian cancer patients without prior genetic counselling: the DNA-BONus study

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 881-888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hildegunn Høberg-Vetti ◽  
Cathrine Bjorvatn ◽  
Bent E Fiane ◽  
Turid Aas ◽  
Kathrine Woie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Genetic Counselling ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Breast And Ovarian Cancer

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’.

scholarly journals Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Genetic Testing at a Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Center

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eloise Chapman-Davis ◽  
Zhen Ni Zhou ◽  
Jessica C. Fields ◽  
Melissa K. Frey ◽  
Bailey Jordan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Ethnic Disparities ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Racial And Ethnic Disparities ◽  
Breast And Ovarian Cancer

Barriers to genetic testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: Do surgeons limit testing?

2017 ◽  
Vol 214 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Hafertepen ◽  
Alyssa Pastorino ◽  
Nichole Morman ◽  
Jennifer Snow ◽  
Deepa Halaharvi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients

Cancer clinical trials available in the community setting: A 5-year analysis from 1999–2004

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6056-6056
Author(s):  
J. K. Keller ◽  
J. Bowman ◽  
J. A. Lee ◽  
M. A. Mathiason ◽  
K. A. Frisby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Major Barrier

6056 Background: Less than 5% of newly diagnosed cancer patients are accrued into clinical trials. In the community setting, the lack of appropriate clinical trials is a major barrier. Our prospective study in 2004 determined that 58% of newly diagnosed adult cancer patients at our community-based cancer center didn’t have a clinical trial available appropriate for their disease stage. Among those with clinical trials, 23% were subsequently found to be ineligible (Go RS, et al. Cancer 2006, in press). However, the availability of clinical trials may vary from year to year. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted to determine what clinical trials were available for newly diagnosed adult cancer patients at our institution from June 1999-July 2004. The study also investigated the proportions of newly diagnosed patients who had a clinical trial available appropriate for type and stage of disease and patients accrued. Results: Over the 5-year period, 207 (82, 87, 99, 102, 117, years 1–5, respectively) trials were available. Most (50.7%) trials were for the following cancers: breast (15.5%), lung (13.5%), head and neck (7.7%), colorectal (7.2%) and lymphoma (6.8%). ECOG (53%), RTOG (26%), and CTSU (9%) provided the majority of the trials. A total of 5,776 new adult cancer patients were seen during this period. Overall, 60% of the patients had a trial available appropriate for type and stage of their cancer, but only 103 (3%) were enrolled. There was a significant upward trend in the proportions of patients with available trials over the years (60.2%, 55.9%, 59.2%, 60.7%, 63.9%, years 1–5, respectively; Mantel-Haenszel P=.008). The proportion of patients with a trial available was highest for prostate (97.3%), lung (90.9%), and breast (73.9%), and lowest for melanoma (17.1%), renal (11.6%), and bladder (7.2%). The majority of patients accrued to trials had the following cancers: breast (32%), lung (17%), lymphoma (9%), colon (7%), and prostate (5%). Conclusions: Nearly half of the newly diagnosed adult patients at our center had no trials available appropriate for type and stage of their cancers. It is likely that if strict clinical trial eligibility criteria were applied, approximately 2/3 of our patients would not be eligible for a clinical trial. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Trends in germline genetic testing and results into survivorship for women diagnosed with breast cancer or ovarian cancer, 2013 to 2017.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 273-273
Author(s):  
Steven J. Katz ◽  
Monica Morrow ◽  
Allison W. Kurian
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Ethnic Minorities ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Number Of Genes ◽  
Racial Ethnic

273 Background: Genetic testing is increasingly central to breast and ovarian cancer prevention and treatment. Yet, little is known about trends and disparities in receipt of testing and test results after diagnosis. Methods: We linked all female patients with breast or ovarian cancer diagnosed from 2013-2017 in Georgia and California and reported to SEER registries to genetic testing results from four laboratories (Ambry Genetics, GeneDx, Invitae, Myriad Genetics). We combined test results from all labs with SEER data. We classified a test as a multigene panel (MGP) if it included other genes in addition to BRCA1/2. We grouped pathogenic variants (PVs) by level of evidence that supported clinical testing: BRCA1/2; other genes associated with well-established syndromes (syndromic genes); genes whose cancer association is less certain (emerging genes); and any other tested genes (other genes). We categorized patients with a variant of unknown significance (VUS) in any gene but no PVs as VUS-only. We examined trends in receipt of testing and test results overall and by race/ethnic groups. Results: One quarter (25.5%) of 198,001 breast cancer patients, and 34.5% of 15,461 ovarian cancer patients had genetic tests. Test rates increased by only 2% annually; while the number of genes tested per patient increased by 28%. The mean number of genes tested rose from 10 to 35 during the study period. In early 2013, 18.3% of testers had a PV or VUS result, which increased to 37.2% in late 2017. The upward trend was largely due to increase in VUS-only findings. The proportion of tested breast cancer patients with any PV increased from 9.1% to 9.9%: PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 7.5% to 5.0% (p<.001), while PV yield for the two other clinical categories (syndromic and emerging genes) increased from 1.6% to 4.9% (p<.001). PVs in any of the other 61 genes were very rare (<1%). By contrast, the VUS rate in breast cancer patients increased markedly from 9.6% in 2013 to 26.2% in 2017. The VUS rate was higher in racial/ethnic minorities (41.0% Asian, 36.5%% Black, 28.0% Latinas versus 25.6% non-Hispanic Whites diagnosed in 2017; p<.001). We observed similar findings for patients with ovarian cancer. Conclusions: A large gap persists in testing ovarian cancer patients (35% versus 100% recommended). Testing more genes per patient was associated with a substantial racial/ethnic gap in VUS with little difference in yield on clinically relevant PVs. Testing a limited subset of genes may optimize yield-to-noise of genetic testing, particularly for racial/ethnic minorities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document