Cost-effectiveness of BRCA1 testing at time of obstetrical prenatal carrier screening for cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND: Improved technologies paired with an increase in access to genetic testing have led to the availability of expanded carrier screening evaluating hundreds of disorders. Currently, most autosomal dominant mutations, such as BRCA1, are not included in expanded carrier assays. Screening pregnant or preconception reproductive-aged women for BRCA1 may present a unique opportunity to perform population-based screening for patients at a time when precancer screening, chemoprevention, and/or risk-reducing surgery may be beneficial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to inform clinical decision-making as to whether the universal incorporation of BRCA1 testing at the time of obstetrical prenatal carrier screening is cost-effective. STUDY DESIGN: A decision analysis and Markov model was created. The initial decision point in the model was BRCA1 testing at the time of expanded carrier screening. Model probabilities, cost, and utility values were derived from published literature. For BRCA1-positive patients, the model simulated breast cancer screening and risk-reducing surgical interventions. A cycle length of 1 year and a time horizon of 47 years were used to simulate the lifespan of patients. The setting was obstetrical clinics in the United States, and the participants were a theoretical cohort of 1,429,074 pregnant patients who annually underwent expanded carrier screening. RESULTS: Among our cohort, BRCA1 testing resulted in the identification of an additional 3716 BRCA1-positive patients, the prevention of 1394 breast and ovarian cancer cases, and 1084 fewer deaths. BRCA1 testing was a cost-effective strategy compared with no BRCA1 testing with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,001 per quality-adjusted life years. In a 1-way sensitivity analysis, we varied the prevalence of BRCA1 in the population from 0.00% to 20.00% and found that BRCA1 testing continued to be the cost-effective strategy until the prevalence rate was reduced to 0.16%. Multiple additional sensitivity analyses did not substantially affect the cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The addition of BRCA1 testing to obstetrical prenatal carrier screening is a cost-effective management strategy to identify at-risk women at a time when cancer screening and preventive strategies can be effective. Despite the burden of additional genetic counseling, prenatal care represents a unique opportunity to implement population-based genetic testing.

Personalized survivorship care: Routine breast cancer risk assessment in the gynecologic oncology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Gynecologic and breast cancers share several risk factors. Breast cancer risk assessment tools can identify those at elevated risk and allow for enhanced breast surveillance and chemoprevention, however such tools are underutilized. We aim to evaluate the use of routine breast cancer risk assessment in a gynecologic oncology clinic. METHODS: A patient-facing web-based tool was used to collect personal and family history and run four validated breast cancer risk assessment models (Tyrer-Cuzick (TC), Gail, BRCAPRO, and Claus) in a gynecologic oncology clinic. We evaluated completion of the tools and identification of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer using the four validated models. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients were included in this analysis. The BRCAPRO model had the highest completion rate (84.8%), followed by the TC model (74.7%), Gail model (74.7%), and the Claus model (52.1%). The TC model identified 21.6% of patients completing the model as having ≥20% lifetime risk of breast cancer, compared to 6.8% by the Gail model, and 0% for both the BRCAPRO and Claus models. The Gail model identified 52.5% of patients as having ≥1.67% 5-year risk of breast cancer. Among patients identified as high-risk for breast cancer and eligible for screening, 9/9 (100%) were referred to a high-risk breast clinic. CONCLUSION: Among patients that completed the TC breast cancer risk assessment in a gynecologic oncology clinic, approximately 1 in 5 were identified to be at significantly elevated lifetime risk for breast cancer. The gynecologic oncologist's office might offer a convenient and feasible setting to incorporate this risk assessment into routine patient care, as gynecologic oncologists often have long-term patient relationships and participate in survivorship care.

Chatbot Artificial Intelligence for Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Most individuals with a hereditary cancer syndrome are unaware of their genetic status to underutilization of hereditary cancer risk assessment. Chatbots, or programs that use artificial intelligence to simulate conversation, have emerged as a promising tool in health care and, more recently, as a potential tool for genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. Here, we evaluated the existing literature on the use of chatbots in genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using key electronic databases to identify studies which use chatbots for genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. Eligible studies were further subjected to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria, evaluating five distinct chatbots. Three studies evaluated a chatbot that could perform genetic cancer risk assessment, one study evaluated a chatbot that offered patient counseling, and three studies included both functions. The pooled estimated completion rate for the genetic cancer risk assessment was 36.7% (95% CI, 14.8 to 65.9). Two studies included comprehensive patient characteristics, and none involved a comparison group. Chatbots varied as to the involvement of a health care provider in the process of risk assessment and counseling. CONCLUSION: Chatbots have been used to streamline genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling and hold promise for reducing barriers to genetic services. Data regarding user and nonuser characteristics are lacking, as are data regarding comparative effectiveness to usual care. Future research may consider the impact of chatbots on equitable access to genetic services.

Landmark Series on Disparities: Uterine Cancer and Strategies for Mitigation.

Longstanding racial disparities exist in uterine cancer. There is a growing body of literature documenting differences in the prevalence, diagnosis, treatment, and tumor characteristics of uterine cancer in Black women compared with White women that significantly contribute to the outcome disparity seen between the groups. This article seeks to provide an overview of racial disparities present in uterine cancer, with attention on Black women in the USA, as well as offer a review on the multifactorial etiology of the disparities described.

Achieving universal genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer: Are we there yet? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services. METHODS: We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]). CONCLUSIONS: Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.

Financial toxicity, mental health, and gynecologic cancer treatment: The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic among low-income women in New York City.

BACKGROUND: New York City (NYC) emerged as an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, and marginalized populations were affected at disproportionate rates. The authors sought to determine the impact of COVID-19 on cancer treatment, anxiety, and financial distress among low-income patients with gynecologic cancer during the peak of the NYC pandemic. METHODS: Medicaid-insured women who were receiving gynecologic oncology care at 2 affiliated centers were contacted by telephone interviews between March 15 and April 15, 2020. Demographics and clinical characteristics were obtained through self-report and retrospective chart review. Financial toxicity, anxiety, and cancer worry were assessed using modified, validated surveys. RESULTS: In total, 100 patients completed the telephone interview. The median age was 60 years (range, 19-86 years), and 71% had an annual income <$40,000. A change in employment status and early stage cancer (stage I and II) were associated with an increase in financial distress (P < .001 and P = .008, respectively). Early stage cancer and telehealth participation were significantly associated with increased worry about future finances (P = .017 and P = .04, respectively). Lower annual income (<$40,000) was associated with increased cancer worry and anxiety compared with higher annual income (>$40,000; P = .036 and P = .017, respectively). When controlling for telehealth participation, income, primary language, and residence in a high COVID-19 prevalence area, a delay in medical care resulted in a 4-fold increased rate of anxiety (P = .023, 95% CI, 1.278-14.50). Race was not significantly associated with increased financial distress, cancer worry, or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Low socioeconomic status was the most common risk factor for increased financial distress, cancer worry, and anxiety. Interventions aimed at improving access to timely oncology care should be implemented during this ongoing pandemic.

Bridging the Gap: A Priorities Assessment Tool to Support Shared Decision Making, Maximize Appointment Time, and Increase Patient Satisfaction in Women With Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Women with ovarian cancer identify patient-physician communication as an essential element in determining treatment course and believe a discussion about goals and values should precede treatment decisions. We sought to develop a patient-centered priorities assessment tool for women with ovarian cancer that could streamline communication, enhance treatment discussions, and increase patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a priorities assessment tool using a validated ovarian cancer symptom index (National Comprehensive Cancer Center-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Symptom Index-18) combined with an index to assess daily quality-of-life priorities. The tool was distributed to women with ovarian cancer in small focus group settings and online, followed by a postactivity feedback form. RESULTS: In this pilot study, 36 women completed the priorities assessment tool and 35 completed the postactivity feedback form between September 2015 and May 2016. All participants reported that the tool was easy to understand and comprehensive in scope. Twenty-nine participants (82.9%) completed the tool in 10 minutes or less. Most participants (n = 31, 86.1%) were able to stratify their priorities and identify 5 top treatment-related priorities. Participants who indicated that their goals and priorities had changed since diagnosis (n = 25, 69.4%) reported that the tool helped to identify current goals and priorities (22 [88%] of 25 participants) and would help them feel more comfortable participating in shared decision making with their medical team (21 [84%] of 25 participants). CONCLUSION: A patient-centered priorities assessment tool was easy to complete and viewed as comprehensive and useful in a pilot cohort of women with ovarian cancer. Use of a priorities assessment tool has the potential to enhance communication, promote shared decision making, and improve patient satisfaction.

Endometrial cancer surveillance adherence reduces utilization and subsequent costs.

OBJECTIVES: In June 2011, the SGO recommended that physical exam and symptoms be the primary surveillance methods in patients with endometrial cancer. We sought to evaluate adherence to these guidelines by comparing the use of CT scans, paps and serum CA125 ordered for endometrial cancer surveillance before and after publication of these guidelines. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for all patients undergoing surveillance for endometrial cancer at a single institution between June 2009 and June 2013. We assessed the number of patients without symptoms or abnormal physical exam findings who underwent surveillance CT scans, paps and/or CA125 during the 2years pre- and 2years post-SGO guidelines. RESULTS: 92 patients (n=48 pre-6/2011, n=44 post-6/2011) were identified. Mean patient age was 58years. No significant difference in age, ethnicity, body mass index, or disease grade or stage was noted. There was a significant decline in surveillance CT scans (n=13, 27% vs. n=4, 9%, p=0.03), CA125 (n=14, 29% vs. 5, 11%, p=0.035) and paps (n=34, 71% vs. n=8 vs. 18%, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in disease status at the last follow-up. Institutional cost of surveillance also declined ($14,102.46 2years pre-guidelines, $3,054.99 2years post-guidelines). CONCLUSIONS: In a single urban academic public hospital, after only 2years, clinical adherence to the 2011 SGO endometrial cancer surveillance guidelines resulted in a significant decline in the use of CT scans, CA125 and paps. This reduction does not appear to affect patient outcomes and led to an appreciable decrease in surveillance costs.

Preoperative experience for public hospital patients with gynecologic cancer: Do structural barriers widen the gap?

BACKGROUND: Widespread disparities in care have been documented in women with gynecologic cancer in the United States. This study was designed to determine whether structural barriers to optimal care were present during the preoperative period for patients with gynecologic cancer. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted for patients undergoing surgery for a gynecologic malignancy at a public hospital or a private hospital staffed by the same team of gynecologic oncologists between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-seven cases were included for analysis (public hospital, 69; private hospital, 188). Patients treated at the private hospital were older (58 vs 52 years; P = .004) and had similar medical comorbidities (median Charlson comorbidity index at both hospitals, 6) but required fewer hospital visits in preparation for surgery (2 vs 4; P < .001). Public hospital patients had a longer wait time from the diagnosis of disease to surgery (63 vs 34 days; P < .001). According to a multiple linear regression model, the public hospital setting was associated with a longer interval from diagnosis to surgery with adjustments for the insurance status, age at diagnosis, cancer stage, and number of preoperative hospital visits (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients at the public hospital were subject to a greater number of preoperative visits and had to wait longer for surgery than patients at the private hospital. Attempts to reduce health care disparities should focus on improving efficiency in health care delivery systems once contact has been established.