Bilateral Oophorectomy and All-Cause Mortality in Women With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Sequence Variations.

Importance: Preventive bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is offered to women at high risk of ovarian cancer who carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2; however, the association of oophorectomy with all-cause mortality has not been clearly defined. Objective: To evaluate the association between bilateral oophorectomy and all-cause mortality among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this international, longitudinal cohort study of women with BRCA sequence variations, information on bilateral oophorectomy was obtained via biennial questionnaire. Participants were women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation, no prior history of cancer, and at least 1 follow-up questionnaire completed. Women were followed up from age 35 to 75 years for incident cancers and deaths. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for all-cause mortality associated with a bilateral oophorectomy (time dependent). Data analysis was performed from January 1 to June 1, 2023. Exposures: Self-reported bilateral oophorectomy (with or without salpingectomy). Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality, breast cancer-specific mortality, and ovarian cancer-specific mortality. Results: There were 4332 women (mean age, 42.6 years) enrolled in the cohort, of whom 2932 (67.8%) chose to undergo a preventive oophorectomy at a mean (range) age of 45.4 (23.0-77.0) years. After a mean follow-up of 9.0 years, 851 women had developed cancer and 228 had died; 57 died of ovarian or fallopian tube cancer, 58 died of breast cancer, 16 died of peritoneal cancer, and 97 died of other causes. The age-adjusted HR for all-cause mortality associated with oophorectomy was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.24-0.42; P < .001). The age-adjusted HR was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.20-0.38; P < .001) and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.22-0.90; P = .03) for women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequence variations, respectively. For women with BRCA1 sequence variations, the estimated cumulative all-cause mortality to age 75 years for women who had an oophorectomy at age 35 years was 25%, compared to 62% for women who did not have an oophorectomy. For women with BRCA2 sequence variations, the estimated cumulative all-cause mortality to age 75 years was 14% for women who had an oophorectomy at age 35 years compared to 28% for women who did not have an oophorectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation, oophorectomy was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality.

MRI Surveillance and Breast Cancer Mortality in Women With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Sequence Variations.

Importance: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance is offered to women with a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene who face a high lifetime risk of breast cancer. Surveillance with MRI is effective in downstaging breast cancers, but the association of MRI surveillance with mortality risk has not been well defined. Objective: To compare breast cancer mortality rates in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation who entered an MRI surveillance program with those who did not. Design, Setting, and Participants: Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation were identified from 59 participating centers in 11 countries. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire between 1995 and 2015 and a follow-up questionnaire every 2 years to document screening histories, incident cancers, and vital status. Women who had breast cancer, a screening MRI examination, or bilateral mastectomy prior to enrollment were excluded. Participants were followed up from age 30 years (or the date of the baseline questionnaire, whichever was later) until age 75 years, the last follow-up, or death from breast cancer. Data were analyzed from January 1 to July 31, 2023. Exposures: Entrance into an MRI surveillance program. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for breast cancer mortality associated with MRI surveillance compared with no MRI surveillance using a time-dependent analysis. Results: A total of 2488 women (mean [range] age at study entry 41.2 [30-69] years), with a sequence variation in the BRCA1 (n = 2004) or BRCA2 (n = 484) genes were included in the analysis. Of these participants, 1756 (70.6%) had at least 1 screening MRI examination and 732 women (29.4%) did not. After a mean follow-up of 9.2 years, 344 women (13.8%) developed breast cancer and 35 women (1.4%) died of breast cancer. The age-adjusted HRs for breast cancer mortality associated with entering an MRI surveillance program were 0.20 (95% CI, 0.10-0.43; P < .001) for women with BRCA1 sequence variations and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.10-17.25; P = .93) for women with BRCA2 sequence variations. Conclusion and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that among women with a BRCA1 sequence variation, MRI surveillance was associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with no MRI surveillance. Further studies of women with BRCA2 sequence variations are needed to ascertain these women obtain the same benefits associated with MRI surveillance.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, including BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53, and recommended approaches to genetic counseling/testing and care strategies in individuals with these P/LP variants. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize important updates regarding: (1) a new section for transgender, nonbinary and gender diverse people who have a hereditary predisposition to cancer focused on risk reduction strategies for ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer; and (2) testing criteria and management associated with TP53 P/LP variants and Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

Factors that differentiate cancer risk management decisions among females with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM.

PURPOSE: Following disclosure of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in hereditary cancer genes, patients face cancer risk management decisions. Through this mixed-methods study, we investigated cancer risk management decisions among females with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM to understand why some patients follow National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, whereas others do not. METHODS: Survey and interview data were cross-analyzed using a 3-stage approach. Identified factors were used to conduct coincidence analysis and differentiate between combinations of factors that result in following or not following guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 13 participants who underwent guideline inconsistent prophylactic surgery, 12 fit 1 of 3 unique patterns: (1) cancer-related anxiety in the absence of trust in care, (2) provider recommending surgery inconsistent with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, or (3) surgery occurring before genetic testing. Two unique patterns were found among 18 of 20 participants who followed guidelines: (1) anxiety along with trust in care or (2) lack of anxiety and no prophylactic surgery before testing. CONCLUSION: Health care provider recommendations and trust in care may influence whether individuals receive care that is congruent with risk levels conferred by specific genes. Interventions are needed to improve provider knowledge, patient trust in non-surgical care, and patient anxiety.

Evaluating Costs Associated With Genetic Counseling Among Commercially Insured US Patients With Cancer From 2013 to 2019.

This cohort study describes the prevalence of out-of-pocket costs for cancer-related genetic counseling services in the US.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Mortality Related to Access to Care for Major Cancers in the United States.

Importance: The reasons underlying racial/ethnic mortality disparities for cancer patients remain poorly understood, especially regarding the role of access to care. Participants: Over five million patients with a primary diagnosis of lung, breast, prostate, colon/rectum, pancreas, ovary, or liver cancer during 2004-2014, were identified from the National Cancer Database. Cox proportional hazards models were applied to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for total mortality associated with race/ethnicity, and access to care related factors (i.e., socioeconomic status [SES], insurance, treating facility, and residential type) for each cancer. Results: Racial/ethnic disparities in total mortality were observed across seven cancers. Compared with non-Hispanic (NH)-white patients, NH-black patients with breast (HR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.26 to 1.29), ovarian (HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.23), prostate (HR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.33), colorectal (HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.12) or pancreatic (HR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.05) cancers had significantly elevated mortality, while Asians (13-31%) and Hispanics (13-19%) had lower mortality for all cancers. Racial/ethnic disparities were observed across all strata of access to care related factors and modified by those factors. NH-black and NH-white disparities were most evident among patients with high SES or those with private insurance, while Hispanic/Asian versus NH-white disparities were more evident among patients with low SES or those with no/poor insurance. Conclusions and Relevance: Racial/ethnic mortality disparities for major cancers exist across all patient groups with different access to care levels. The influence of SES or insurance on mortality disparity follows different patterns for racial/ethnic minorities versus NH-whites. Impact: Our study highlights the need for racial/ethnic-specific strategies to reduce the mortality disparities for major cancers.

Enhancing Cancer care of rural dwellers through telehealth and engagement (ENCORE): protocol to evaluate effectiveness of a multi-level telehealth-based intervention to improve rural cancer care delivery.

BACKGROUND: Despite lower cancer incidence rates, cancer mortality is higher among rural compared to urban dwellers. Patient, provider, and institutional level factors contribute to these disparities. The overarching objective of this study is to leverage the multidisciplinary, multispecialty oncology team from an academic cancer center in order to provide comprehensive cancer care at both the patient and provider levels in rural healthcare centers. Our specific aims are to: 1) evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a multi-level telehealth-based intervention consisting of provider access to molecular tumor board expertise along with patient access to a supportive care intervention to improve cancer care delivery; and 2) identify the facilitators and barriers to future larger scale dissemination and implementation of the multi-level intervention. METHODS: Coordinated by a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, this study will include providers and patients across several clinics in two large healthcare systems serving rural communities. Using a telehealth-based molecular tumor board, sequencing results are reviewed, predictive and prognostic markers are discussed, and treatment plans are formulated between expert oncologists and rural providers. Simultaneously, the rural patients will be randomized to receive an evidence-based 6-week self-management supportive care program, Cancer Thriving and Surviving, versus an education attention control. Primary outcomes will be provider uptake of the molecular tumor board recommendation and patient treatment adherence. A mixed methods approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research that combines qualitative key informant interviews and quantitative surveys will be collected from both the patient and provider in order to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing the multi-level intervention. DISCUSSION: The proposed study will leverage information technology-enabled, team-based care delivery models in order to deliver comprehensive, coordinated, and high-quality cancer care to rural and/or underserved populations. Simultaneous attention to institutional, provider, and patient level barriers to quality care will afford the opportunity for us to broadly share oncology expertise and develop dissemination and implementation strategies that will enhance the cancer care delivered to patients residing within underserved rural communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT04758338 . Registered 17 February 2021 - Retrospectively registered, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer and recommended approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This manuscript focuses on cancer risk and risk management for BRCA-related breast/ovarian cancer syndrome and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Carriers of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant have an excessive risk for both breast and ovarian cancer that warrants consideration of more intensive screening and preventive strategies. There is also evidence that risks of prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer are elevated in these carriers. Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a highly penetrant cancer syndrome associated with a high lifetime risk for cancer, including soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, premenopausal breast cancer, colon cancer, gastric cancer, adrenocortical carcinoma, and brain tumors.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 1.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes, and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with syndromes associated with an increased risk of these cancers. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments, examine relevant new data, and reevaluate and update recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding criteria for high-penetrance genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer beyond BRCA1/2, pancreas screening and genes associated with pancreatic cancer, genetic testing for the purpose of systemic therapy decision-making, and testing for people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

A community-academic partnership to explore informational needs of African American women as a primer for cancer clinical trial recruitment.

Background: African Americans (AAs) are less likely to participate in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) despite experiencing disproportionately higher rates of cancer mortality. As a way to address these ongoing disparities, this study sought to qualitatively explore informational needs regarding CCTs among AA women and identify message considerations for educational information targeting AA women and their community. Methods: Three focus groups were conducted in which AA women viewed a DVD created as a decisional tool for CCT participation and provided feedback regarding content. Results: Results indicated general fear regarding CCTs, which is partially attributable to the impact of historic research abuses, lack of information regarding CCTs, and lack of cultural relevance of the education and outreach materials for AA communities. Recruitment of AAs to CCTs may be enhanced by educational and outreach approaches that increase awareness of CCTs as well as involvement of the AA community in developing such interventions. Conclusion: Interventions should include the perspectives of AA women, as key stakeholders and decision-makers for their family and provide research information in a multimedia format that will facilitate family discussion and decision-making regarding CCTs.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with a syndrome. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. The NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding risk management for carriers of moderately penetrant genetic mutations associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer.

Evolution of Hereditary Breast Cancer Genetic Services: Are Changes Reflected in the Knowledge and Clinical Practices of Florida Providers?

AIMS: We describe practitioner knowledge and practices related to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in an evolving landscape of genetic testing. METHODS: A survey was mailed in late 2013 to Florida providers who order HBOC testing. Descriptive statistics were conducted to characterize participants' responses. RESULTS: Of 101 respondents, 66% indicated either no genetics education or education through a commercial laboratory. Although 79% of respondents were aware of the Supreme Court ruling resulting in the loss of Myriad Genetics' BRCA gene patent, only 19% had ordered testing from a different laboratory. With regard to pretest counseling, 78% of respondents indicated they usually discuss 11 of 14 nationally recommended elements for informed consent. Pretest discussion times varied from 3 to 120 min, with approximately half spending <20 min. Elements not routinely covered by >40% of respondents included (1) possibility of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) and (2) issues related to life/disability insurance. With regard to genetic testing for HBOC, 88% would test an unaffected sister of a breast cancer patient identified with a BRCA VUS. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight the need to identify whether variability in hereditary cancer service delivery impacts patient outcomes. Findings also reveal opportunities to facilitate ongoing outreach and education.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2015.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling and risk assessment and management for hereditary cancer syndromes. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer and are intended to assist with clinical and shared decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points of the 2015 NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meeting. Major discussion topics this year included multigene testing, risk management recommendations for less common genetic mutations, and salpingectomy for ovarian cancer risk reduction. The panel also discussed revisions to genetic testing criteria that take into account ovarian cancer histology and personal history of pancreatic cancer.

Recruitment of a Population-Based Sample of Young Black Women with Breast Cancer through a State Cancer Registry.

Given that Black women remain underrepresented in clinical research studies, we sought to recruit a population-based sample of young Black women with breast cancer through a state cancer registry. Demographic and clinical information on all Black women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at or below age 50 between 2009 and 2012 in Florida was obtained through the state cancer registry. Survivors were invited to participate in the study through state-mandated recruitment methods. Participant demographic and clinical characteristics were compared using Chi-squared tests for categorical variables and the two sample t-test for continuous variables to identify differences between: (i) consented participants versus all other eligible; and (ii) living versus deceased. Of the 1,647 young Black women with breast cancer, mean age at diagnosis was 42.5, with the majority having localized or regional disease, unmarried, privately insured, and employed. There were no significant differences in demographic and clinical variables between the 456 consented study participants versus the remaining 1,191 presumed eligible individuals. Compared to potential participants, women determined to be deceased prior to recruitment (n = 182) were significantly more likely to have distant disease and a triple-negative phenotype. They were also significantly more likely to be unemployed, and uninsured or have public insurance (i.e., Medicaid or Medicare). Our results demonstrate that recruitment of a population-based sample of breast cancer survivors through a state cancer registry is a feasible strategy in this underserved and underrepresented population. However, survival bias, which was observed due to the lag time between diagnosis and recruitment, is important to adjust for when generalizing findings to all young Black breast cancer patients.

Factors associated with genetic counseling and BRCA testing in a population-based sample of young Black women with breast cancer.

Concerns about the potential for genomic advances to increase health disparities have been raised. Thus, it is important to assess referral and uptake of genetic counseling (GC) and testing in minority populations at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Black women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer ≤age 50 in 2009-2012 were recruited through the Florida State Cancer Registry 6-18 months following diagnosis and completed a baseline questionnaire. Summary statistics, Chi-square tests, and path modeling were conducted to examine which demographic and clinical variables were associated with referral and access to genetic services. Of the 440 participants, all met national criteria for GC, yet only 224 (51 %) were referred for or received GC and/or HBOC testing. Variables most strongly associated with healthcare provider referral for GC included having a college education (OR 2.1), diagnosis at or below age 45 (OR 2.0), and triple negative tumor receptor status (OR 1.7). The strongest association with receipt of GC and/or HBOC testing was healthcare provider referral (OR 7.9), followed by private health insurance at diagnosis (OR 2.8), and household income greater than $35,000 in the year prior to diagnosis (OR 2.0). Study findings suggest efforts are needed to improve genetic services access among a population-based sample of high-risk Black women. These results indicate that socioeconomic factors and physician referral patterns contribute to disparities in access to genetic services within this underserved minority population.

Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian, version 1.2014.

During the past few years, several genetic aberrations that may contribute to increased risks for development of breast and/or ovarian cancers have been identified. The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian focus specifically on the assessment of genetic mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2, TP53, and PTEN, and recommend approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these mutations. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines includes recommendations regarding diagnostic criteria and management of patients with Cowden Syndrome/PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome.

Factors which impact the delivery of genetic risk assessment services focused on inherited cancer genomics: expanding the role and reach of certified genetics professionals.

There is tremendous excitement about the promise of new genomic technologies to transform medical practice and improve patient care. Although the full power of genetic diagnosis has not yet been realized, paradigms of clinical decision-making are changing. In fact, recent policy level changes to promote genetic counseling by certified genetics professionals (GP) such as genetic counselors and clinical geneticists, are occurring at both the payer and state level. However, there remain opportunities to develop policies within the United States to: 1) enhance the access to the limited workforce of GPs; 2) revise reimbursement schemes such that costs to deliver these services may be recouped by institutions with GPs; and 3) protect against the potential for discrimination based on genetic information. Although many of these issues predate advances in genomic technologies, they are exacerbated by them, with increasing access and awareness as costs of testing decrease. Consequently, evolving shifts in national policies poise GPs to serve as a hub of information and may be instrumental in facilitating new models to deliver genetics-based care through promoting academic-community partnerships and interfacing with non-GPs. As we acknowledge the potential for genomics to revolutionize medical practice, the expertise of GPs may be leveraged to facilitate incorporation of this information into mainstream medicine.