Germline BRCA1/2 testing practices in ovarian cancer: Current state and opportunities for new directions.

PURPOSE: Given the implications for clinical care and prevention in identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation, the objective of this study was to determine current BRCA1/2 testing practices in ovarian cancer and to identify future directions. METHODS: Two parallel complementary web-based surveys were sent by email to representatives of Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) and to referral centers in countries with and without GCIG membership. Questions posed addressed indications of BRCA1/2 testing for ovarian cancer; the implication of genetic counseling; and prevention strategies employed. RESULTS: Among the GCIG, 22 collaborative groups from 19 countries answered the survey. For the complementary survey, 22 referral centers replied. Findings show criteria to offer germline BRCA1/2 testing are mixed; 55% of GCIG members based testing decisions on histology and, among all respondents the main testing criterion remains family history. Typically, genetic counseling is scheduled prior to the genetic testing; however, if negative, results may not be communicated by the genetic counselor. Time between testing and communicating results varies widely between the groups. Lastly, recommendations to relatives regarding risk reduction surgery are inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the need for collaborative efforts to devise international guidelines around BRCA1/2 testing in ovarian cancer to ensure consistent BRCA1/2 screening practices are adopted. Clinical practice is evolving rapidly and as BRCA1/2 testing is expected to become more widespread, new approaches are required. Coordinating BRCA1/2 testing practices is crucial in terms of care for the patient diagnosed with ovarian cancer but also towards cancer prevention for affected family members.

Progression-free survival in advanced ovarian cancer: a Canadian review and expert panel perspective.

Ovarian cancer is leading cause of gynecologic cancer mortality in Canada. To date, overall survival (os) has been the most-used endpoint in oncology trials because of its relevance and objectivity. However, as a result of various factors, including the pattern of sequential salvage therapies, measurement of os and collection of os data are becoming particularly challenging. Phase ii and iii trials have therefore adopted progression-free survival (pfs) as a more convenient surrogate endpoint; however, the clinical significance of pfs remains unclear. This position paper presents discussion topics and findings from a pan-Canadian meeting of experts that set out to evaluate the relevance of pfs as a valid endpoint in ovarian cancer;reach a Canadian consensus on the relevance of pfs in ovarian cancer; andtry to address how pfs translates into clinical benefit in ovarian cancer.Overall, the findings and the group consensus posit that future studies should ensure that trials are designed to evaluate pfs, os, and other clinically relevant endpoints such as disease-related symptoms or quality of life;incorporate interim futility analyses intended to stop accrual early when the experimental regimen is not active;stop trials early to declare superiority only when compelling evidence suggests that a new treatment provides benefit for a pre-specified, clinically relevant endpoint such as os or symptom relief; anddiscourage early release of secondary endpoint results when such a release might increase the frequency of crossover to the experimental intervention.