Search

Purpose: Tubo-ovarian cancer (TOC) is a sentinel cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (PVs). Identification of a PV in the first member of a family at increased genetic risk (the proband) provides opportunities for cancer prevention in other at-risk family members. Although Australian testing rates are now high, PVs in patients with TOC whose diagnosis predated revised testing guidelines might have been missed. We assessed the feasibility of detecting PVs in this population to enable genetic risk reduction in relatives., Patients and Methods: In this pilot study, deceased probands were ascertained from research cohort studies, identification by a relative, and gynecologic oncology clinics. DNA was extracted from archival tissue or stored blood for panel sequencing of 10 risk-associated genes. Testing of deceased probands ascertained through clinic records was performed with a consent waiver., Results: We identified 85 PVs in 84 of 787 (11%) probands. Familial contacts of 39 of 60 (65%) deceased probands with an identified recipient (60 of 84; 71%) have received a written notification of results, with follow-up verbal contact made in 85% (33 of 39). A minority of families (n = 4) were already aware of the PV. For many (29 of 33; 88%), the genetic result provided new information and referral to a genetic service was accepted in most cases (66%; 19 of 29). Those who declined referral (4 of 29) were all male next of kin whose family member had died more than 10 years before., Conclusion: We overcame ethical and logistic challenges to demonstrate that retrospective genetic testing to identify PVs in previously untested deceased probands with TOC is feasible. Understanding reasons for a family member's decision to accept or decline a referral will be important for guiding future TRACEBACK projects., Competing Interests: Belinda CreightonEmployment: Cancer Specialists 1/84 Bridge Rd, Richmond VIC 3121 AustraliaConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai Dinuka AriyaratneResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Elizabeth ChristieHonoraria: AstraZeneca Sian FeredayConsulting or Advisory Role: Geneseq Biosciences Pty LtdResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst) Nadia TraficanteResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst) Bryony ThompsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Genetic Technologies Kenneth DoigStock and Other Ownership Interests: CSL Limited Christopher LoveEmployment: Geneseq Biosciences Yeh Chen LeeConsulting or Advisory Role: GlaxoSmithKlineResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca Rachel WilliamsHonoraria: AstraZeneca Andrew N. StephensConsulting or Advisory Role: Invion Pty Ltd (Inst)Research Funding: Invion Pty Ltd (Inst) Adeline TanEmployment: Sonic HealthcareStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sonic Healthcare Stephen B. FoxConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis (Inst), BMS (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), MSD (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche (Inst)Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Roche (Inst), BMS (Inst)Expert Testimony: AstraZeneca (Inst), MSD (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ventana Medical Systems, AstraZeneca, MSD Mary-Anne YoungUncompensated Relationships: Illumina (Inst) Jane HillOther Relationship: Medicines Australia Paul A. CohenEmployment: St John of God HealthcareStock and Other Ownership Interests: Clinic IQHonoraria: AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Clinic IQResearch Funding: ANZGOG, St John of God Foundation Penelope M. WebbResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst) Michael FriedlanderHonoraria: AstraZeneca, MSD, Lilly, Takeda, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKlineConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, MSD, AbbVie, Lilly, Takeda, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKlineSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, ACT GenomicsResearch Funding: BeiGene (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca David BowtellHonoraria: AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Exo TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, BeiGenePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: AstraZeneca Genentech Roche Kathryn AlsopResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: BRCA1/2 mutation status has increasing relevance for ovarian cancer treatments, making traditional coordination of genetic testing by genetic services unsustainable. Consequently alternative models of genetic testing have been developed to improve testing at the initial diagnosis for all eligible women., Methods: A training module to enable mainstreamed genetic testing by oncology healthcare professionals was developed by genetic health professionals. Oncology healthcare professionals completed questionnaires before and 12 months post-training to assess perceived skills, competence and barriers to their coordinating genetic testing for women with high-grade non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer. Genetic health professionals were surveyed 12 months post-training to assess perceived barriers to implementation of mainstreaming., Results: 185 oncology healthcare professionals were trained in 42 workshops at 35 Australasian hospitals. Of the 273 tests ordered by oncology healthcare professionals post-training, 241 (93.1%) met national testing guidelines. The number of tests ordered by genetic health professionals reduced significantly (z = 45.0, p = 0.008). Oncology healthcare professionals' perceived barriers to mainstreamed testing decreased from baseline to follow-up (t = 2.39, p = 0.023), particularly perceived skills, knowledge and attitudes. However, only 58% reported either 'always' or 'nearly always' having ordered BRCA testing for eligible patients at 12 months, suggesting oncology healthcare professionals' perceived barriers were not systematically addressed through training., Conclusions: Oncology healthcare professionals have demonstrated a willingness to be involved in the provision of genetic testing in a mainstreaming model. If oncology services are to hold responsibility for coordinating genetic testing, their readiness will require understanding of barriers not addressed by training alone to inform future intervention design., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Bettina Meiser, Kathy Tucker, Maira Kentwell and Margaret Gleeson have held a remunerated consultant role with the company Astrazeneca with respect to this project and together with Michael Friedlander, Yoland Antill, Amy Pearn, Camron Ebzery and Rachel Williams have been remunerated by Astrazeneca for advisory boards and lectures outside this project. Amy Pearn has also held a position with the Genetic Services of Western Australia funded solely by Astrazeneca. Michael Friedlander and Yoland Antill have also received support for investigator initiated clinical trials from Astrazeneca outside the submitted work, and Michael Friedlander reports personal fees from MSD, Lilly, Takeda and Novartis outside the submitted work. Clare Scott has participated in non-remunerated advisory boards on mainstreaming and PARP inhibitor therapy for Astrazeneca, Clovis Oncology and Takeda., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation ( gBRCA ) status in women with high-grade serous tubo-ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma with and without serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinomas (serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-positive vs serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-negative)., Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was performed of patients in Western Australia diagnosed with high-grade serous tubo-ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma and referred for genetic counseling and gBRCA testing from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2017. Histopathology reports were reviewed to ascertain whether serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma was present. Personal or family gBRCA status, family history, age at diagnosis, mode of treatment (neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs primary surgery), and stage were also recorded., Results: A total of 269 women with high-grade serous tubo-ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma were referred for genetic counseling and testing. 114 patients were excluded because the serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma status was not assessable or because patients did not attend for genetic assessment. 155 patients (55 serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-positive and 100 serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-negative) underwent genetic testing. gBRCA mutations were found in 27.8% of serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-positive patients compared with 14.0% of serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-negative patients (p=0.094). Of those found to have a gBRCA mutation, 89.7% reported a positive personal or family history of BRCA -related cancers., Conclusions: The gBRCA mutation detection rate in serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-positive patients was nearly double that of serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-negative patients. Factors such as a positive family history of BRCA -related cancers were seen at a higher proportion in the mutation positive women., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Patients with non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers should be referred for genetic testing because approximately 15% will carry an inherited mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 cancer susceptibility genes. However, referral rates for genetic testing remain low. For patients who carry a BRCA mutation, failure to refer for genetic testing results in missed opportunities for therapy and prevention of future cancers in the patient and at-risk relatives. In Western Australia between July 2013 and June 2015, 40.6% of patients with non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers discussed at a statewide gynecologic oncology tumor board were referred for genetic testing. Our objective was to investigate the proportion of patients with non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers in Western Australia referred for BRCA1/2 testing from July 2015 to December 2017, following the introduction of mainstreaming and tele-counseling. A secondary aim was to compare the uptake of genetic testing between different genetic counseling modalities., Methods: Retrospective case series. All patients with high-grade non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers discussed at the weekly Western Australian gynecologic oncology tumor board meeting, between July 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017, and those referred for BRCA mutation testing, were ascertained., Results: A total of 343 women were eligible for referral; 63 patients were excluded, leaving 280 patients for analysis. 220/280 patients were referred for genetic testing (78.6%). There were no differences in uptake of genetic testing by mode of genetic counseling., Discussion: A significant increase in referrals of eligible patients for genetic testing was observed in 2015-2017 compared with 2013-2014. Although there were no differences in uptake of genetic testing by mode of counseling, mainstreaming and tele-counseling provide alternative options for patients that may lead to higher uptake of genetic testing., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The aim of the current study was to explore barriers to genetic counseling and testing in women with gynecological cancers deemed at significant risk of carrying a germline mutation., Methods: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and inductively analysed thematically. Eight patients with ovarian or endometrial cancer participated in individual semi-structured telephone interviews that assessed motivation for genetic counseling and testing, perceived benefits and barriers, timing of the approach, perceptions of the referral process to genetic services and locus of control in relation to cancer and health., Results: Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed five themes relating to perceptions of genetic counseling and testing: Lack of importance; Level of information received; Timing of referral processes; Fear and anxiety; Resistance to and perceptions of counseling., Conclusions: Participants had a limited understanding of hereditary cancer syndromes and did not appreciate the benefits of genetic testing. A consistent approach at the time of referral to genetic services is needed to ensure that the level and format of information is appropriate for patients., Practice Implications: The rationale for genetic testing needs to be better explained to patients and the timing of referral should be based both on treatment priorities and patient preferences., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The objectives of this work were to determine the proportion of eligible patients with ovarian cancer discussed at a gynecologic oncology tumor board who were referred for counseling and BRCA mutation testing; to compare referral rates before genetics attendance at the tumor board to referral rates after genetics attendance; and to ascertain the proportions of women with germline BRCA mutations., Materials and Methods: Eligible cases were identified from the minutes of the weekly Western Australian gynecologic oncology tumor board from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015.Patients with ovarian cancer who met eligibility criteria for genetics referral were identified and checked against the records of the genetic services database to ascertain whether a referral was received. Outcomes including attendance for counseling and results of mutation testing were analyzed., Results: Two hundred sixty-one patients were eligible for referral during the 24-month study period. One hundred six patients (40.6%) were referred for counseling and germline mutation testing. Of the eligible patients, 26.7% were referred in the 12 months before genetics attendance at the tumor board compared to 51.7% of the eligible patients in the 12 months after genetics attendance (P ≤ 0.0001). Ninety-seven patients were offered BRCA mutation testing, and 73 underwent testing with 65 results reported to date. Twenty-two patients (33.8 %) tested positive for a germline BRCA mutation., Conclusions: Patients with ovarian cancer had a high rate of BRCA mutations. Attendance of a genetics service at a tumor board was associated with an improved rate of referral of patients for genetic counseling and BRCA mutation testing.