ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is a growing need for genetic testing of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. Mainstream genetic testing provides an alternative care pathway in which non-genetic healthcare professionals offer pre-test counseling themselves. We aimed to explore the impact of mainstream genetic testing on patients' experiences, turnaround times and adherence of non-genetic healthcare professionals to the mainstream genetic testing protocol. METHODS: Patients receiving pre-test counseling at the gynecology departments between April 2018 and April 2020 were eligible to participate in our intervention group. Patients receiving pre-test counseling at the genetics department between January 2017 and April 2020 were eligible to participate in our control group. We evaluated patients' experiences with questionnaires, consisting of questions regarding knowledge, satisfaction and psychosocial outcomes. Patients in the intervention group were sent two questionnaires: one after pre-test counseling and one after receiving their DNA test result. Patients in our control group were sent one questionnaire after receiving their test result. In addition, we collected data regarding turnaround times and adherence of non-genetic healthcare professionals to the mainstream genetic testing protocol. RESULTS: Participation was 79% in our intervention group (105 out of 133 patients) and 60% in our control group (91 out of 152 patients). Knowledge regarding genetics, decisional conflict, depression, anxiety, and distress were comparable in the two groups. In the intervention group, the risk of breast cancer in patients carrying a pathogenic germline variant was discussed less often (49% versus 74% in control group, p ≤ 0.05), and the mean score of regret about the decision to have genetic testing was higher than in the control group (mean 12.9 in the intervention group versus 9.7 in the control group, p ≤ 0.05), although below the clinically relevant threshold of 25. A consent form for the DNA test and a checklist to assess family history were present for ≥ 95% of patients in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: Mainstream genetic testing is an acceptable approach to meet the increase in genetic testing among women with epithelial ovarian cancer.
ABSTRACT
Pelvic serous carcinoma is usually advanced stage at diagnosis, indicating that abdominal spread occurs early in carcinogenesis. Recent discovery of a precursor sequence in the fallopian tube, culminating in serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC), provides an opportunity to study early disease events. This study aims to explore novel metastatic routes in STICs. A BRCA1 mutation carrier (patient A) who presented with a STIC and tubal intraluminal shedding of tumor cells upon prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (PBSO) instigated scrutiny of an additional 23 women who underwent a PBSO and 40 patients with pelvic serous carcinoma involving the tubes. Complete serial sectioning of tubes and ovaries of patient A did not reveal invasive carcinoma, but subsequent staging surgery showed disseminated abdominal disease. STIC, intraluminal tumor cells, and abdominal metastases displayed an identical immunohistochemical profile (p53/WT1/PAX8/PAX2) and TP53 mutation. In 16 serous carcinoma patients (40%) tubal intraluminal tumor cells were found, compared with none in the PBSO group. This is the first description of a STIC, which plausibly metastasized without the presence of invasion through intraluminal shedding of malignant surface epithelial cells in the tube and subsequently spread throughout the peritoneal cavity. These findings warrant a reconsideration of the malignant potential of STICs and indicate that intraluminal shedding could be a risk factor for early intraperitoneal metastasis. Although rare in the absence of invasive cancer, we show that intraluminal shedding of tumor cells in the fallopian tubes from serous carcinoma cases are common and a likely route of abdominal spread.