Implementation of Multigene Germline and Parallel Somatic Genetic Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: SIGNPOST Study

We present findings of a cancer multidisciplinary-team (MDT) coordinated mainstreaming pathway of unselected 5-panel germline BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 and parallel somatic BRCA1/BRCA2 testing in all women with epithelial-OC and highlight the discordance between germline and somatic testing strategies across two cancer centres. Patients were counselled and consented by a cancer MDT member. The uptake of parallel multi-gene germline and somatic testing was 97.7%. Counselling by clinical-nurse-specialist more frequently needed >1 consultation (53.6% (30/56)) compared to a medical (15.0% (21/137)) or surgical oncologist (15.3% (17/110)) (p < 0.001). The median age was 54 (IQR = 51–62) years in germline pathogenic-variant (PV) versus 61 (IQR = 51–71) in BRCA wild-type (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in distribution of PVs by ethnicity, stage, surgery timing or resection status. A total of 15.5% germline and 7.8% somatic BRCA1/BRCA2 PVs were identified. A total of 2.3% patients had RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 PVs. A total of 11% germline PVs were large-genomic-rearrangements and missed by somatic testing. A total of 20% germline PVs are missed by somatic first BRCA-testing approach and 55.6% germline PVs missed by family history ascertainment. The somatic testing failure rate is higher (23%) for patients undergoing diagnostic biopsies. Our findings favour a prospective parallel somatic and germline panel testing approach as a clinically efficient strategy to maximise variant identification. UK Genomics test-directory criteria should be expanded to include a panel of OC genes.

Pilot Study of a Surgical-Oncology Geriatric Co-Management Program

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate clinical outcomes of a pilot co-management model for patients 65 years and older that were referred by their surgical oncologist for a comprehensive geriatric assessment prior to surgery. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted for 9 patients. Patients’ pre-operative Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and frailty index were measured. Additional measures included advanced care planning (ACP) documentation and whether patients transferred primary care. Post-operative courses and complications were followed, including length of stay (LOS) and discharge outcomes. Results: A total of 9 patient charts were reviewed. The average age was 79 years. The average CCI and frailty indices were 9 and 4, respectively. Every patient had ACP during the initial assessment. Five patients had multiple outpatient geriatrician visits. Of the 9 referrals, 7 proceeded with surgery. LOS ranged from 6 – 22 days, with a median and average of 8 and 11 days, respectively. Of those undergoing surgery, 4 had an inpatient geriatrics consult. Complications included 1 mortality, 2 aborted cases and 4 with other complications. Four patients were discharged to previous living situations and 2 to SAR. Two patients had one ED/UC visit and 2 had multiple readmissions. No patients transferred their primary care. Conclusion: This is a small pilot showing a promising collaboration between geriatrics and surgical oncology. It outlines a supportive framework for initial and peri-operative geriatric assessments with favorable experiences for both providers. More studies are necessary to make clinical associations with this co-management model.

Oncoplastic Breast Surgery – Pros and Cons for the Breast Surgical Oncologist

NA

Canadian guidelines on the management of colorectal peritoneal metastases

Modern management of colorectal cancer (crc) with peritoneal metastasis (pm) is based on a combination of cytore­ductive surgery (crs), systemic chemotherapy, and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (hipec). Although the role of hipec has recently been questioned with respect to results from the prodige 7 trial, the role and benefit of a complete crs were confirmed, as observed with a 41-month gain in median survival in that study, and 15% of patients remaining disease-free at 5 years. Still, crc with pm is associated with a poor prognosis, and good patient selection is essential. Many questions about the optimal management approach for such patients remain, but all patients with pm from crc should be referred to, or discussed with, a pm surgical oncologist, because cure is possible. The objective of the present guideline is to offer a practical approach to the management of pm from crc and to reflect on the new practice standards set by recent publications on the topic.

Effect of Surgical Oncologist Turnover on Hospital Volume and Treatment Outcomes Among Patients With Upper GI Malignancies

PURPOSE: Lack of surgical expertise may affect cancer care delivery. Here, we examined the impact of surgical oncologist vacancy and turnover in a community cancer center serving a mixed urban and rural population. METHODS: Survival outcomes of patients with potentially resectable esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic carcinomas treated in the index hospital (n = 519) were compared with those of a then-contemporary control group derived from the state-specific SEER registry (n = 3,340). The onboarding period (ie, the period without a surgical oncologist) and early and late periods with a surgical oncologist were defined. RESULTS: At the state level, there was a steady trend of patients who were annually referred (290.4 ± 34.3 patients per year; P < .001) and underwent operation (158.7 ± 18.7 patients per year; P < .001). We observed the absence of an analogous trend in the index hospital ( P = .141). The index hospital diagnosed 12.2% of state cancers of interest during the years with surgical oncologists but only 6.7% of cancers when surgical oncologists were absent ( P = .031). The survival model adjusted for age, stage, and primary disease site comparing the early and late periods demonstrated that being treated in the index hospital did not result in inferior survival (hazard ratio, 1.067; P = .265). CONCLUSION: Loss of surgical oncologists was associated with referral decline and likely out-migration of patients, whereas prompt restoration of surgical oncology services reinstated volumes and preserved survival outcomes.