Evaluation of family history in individuals with heterozygous BRCA pathogenic variants diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer in a single center in Italy.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations are responsible for 5% of breast cancer (BC) and 10-15% of ovarian cancer (EOC). The presence of a germline mutation and therefore the identification of subjects at high risk of developing cancer should ideally precede the onset of the disease, so that appropriate surveillance and risk-reducing treatments can be proposed. In this study, we revisited the family history (FH) of women who tested positive for BRCA mutations after being diagnosed with BC or EOC. METHODS: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®), and the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines were applied to the FH of 157 women who were referred to San Gerardo Hospital for genetic counseling. RESULTS: Almost 85% of women had an FH of BRCA-related cancer. 63.7% and 52.2% of women could have undergone genetic testing according to NCCN and AIOM testing criteria (p < .05) before tumor diagnosis. An FH of EOC was the most frequent NCCN criterion, followed by BC diagnosed <45 years old. Sixty-five percent of deceased women could have undergone genetic testing before developing cancer. CONCLUSIONS: FH is a powerful tool to identify high-risk individuals eligible for genetic counseling and testing. Testing of healthy individuals should be considered when an appropriately affected family member is unavailable for testing.

Seroprevalence of and Risk Factors Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Health Care Workers During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy.

Importance: Identifying health care settings and professionals at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial to defining appropriate strategies, resource allocation, and protocols to protect health care workers (HCWs) and patients. Moreover, such information is crucial to decrease the risk that HCWs and health care facilities become amplifiers for SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the community. Objective: To assess the association of different health care professional categories and operational units, including in-hospital wards, outpatient facilities, and territorial care departments, with seroprevalence and odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted using IgG serological tests collected from April 1 through May 26, 2020, in the Lombardy region in Italy. Voluntary serological screening was offered to all clinical and nonclinical staff providing any health care services or support to health care services in the region. Data were analyzed from June 2020 through April 2021. Exposures: Employment in the health care sector. Main Outcomes and Measures: Seroprevalence of positive IgG antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 was collected, and odds ratios of experiencing infection were calculated. Results: A total of 140 782 professionals employed in the health sector were invited to participate in IgG serological screening, among whom 82 961 individuals (59.0% response rate) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, with median (interquartile range [IQR]; range) age, 50 (40-56; 19-83) years and 59 839 (72.1%) women. Among these individuals, 10 115 HCWs (12.2%; 95% CI, 12.0%-12.4%) had positive results (median [IQR; range] age, 50 [39-55; 20-80] years; 7298 [72.2%] women). Statistically significantly higher odds of infection were found among health assistants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.33-1.65) and nurses (aOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.17-1.41) compared with administrative staff and among workers employed in internal medicine (aOR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.87-2.68), palliative care (aOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.38-2.44), rehabilitation (aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.33-1.91), and emergency departments (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.29-1.89) compared with those working as telephone operators. Statistically significantly lower odds of infection were found among individuals working in forensic medicine (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.88), histology and anatomical pathology (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.97), and medical device sterilization (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84) compared with those working as telephone operators. The odds of infection for physicians and laboratory personnel were not statistically significantly different from those found among administrative staff. The odds of infection for workers employed in intensive care units and infectious disease wards were not statistically significantly different from those of telephone operators. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that professionals partially accustomed to managing infectious diseases had higher odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The findings further suggest that adequate organization of clinical wards and personnel, appropriate personal protective equipment supply, and training of all workers directly and repeatedly exposed to patients with clinical or subclinical COVID-19 should be prioritized to decrease the risk of infection in health care settings.