Do people with hereditary cancer syndromes inform their at-risk relatives? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose: To evaluate rates of familial disclosure of hereditary cancer syndrome information. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO no.: CRD42020134276). Key electronic databases were searched to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer syndrome cascade relative disclosure. Eligible studies were subjected to meta-analysis. Results: Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Among 11,711 included relatives, 70% (95% CI 60 - 78%) were informed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant; of 2,875 relatives informed of their risk who were evaluated for uptake of cascade testing, 43% (95% CI 27 - 61%) completed testing. Rates of disclosure were higher among female vs male relatives (79% [95% CI 73% - 84%] vs 67% [95% CI 57% - 75%]) and first-degree vs second-degree relatives (83% [95% CI 77% - 88%] vs 58% [95% CI 45 - 69%]). Conclusion: Nearly one-third of at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. Even among those informed, fewer than half subsequently complete genetic testing, representing a critical missed opportunity for precision cancer prevention. Innovation: Five studies evaluating interventions to improve disclosure rates were generally ineffective. Urgent work is needed to elucidate barriers to relative disclosure by probands to develop targeted interventions that can optimize proband-mediated cascade genetic testing rates.

Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, providing relatives the opportunity for early detection and prevention of cancer. The current standard is for patients to contact and encourage relatives (patient-mediated contact) to undergo counseling and testing. Direct relative contact by the medical team or testing laboratory has shown promise but is complicated by privacy laws and lack of infrastructure. We sought to compare outcomes associated with patient-mediated and direct relative contact for hereditary cancer cascade genetic counseling and testing in the first meta-analysis on this topic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42020134276). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer cascade testing. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Among relatives included in the meta-analysis, 48% (95% CI, 38 to 58) underwent cascade genetic counseling and 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) cascade genetic testing. Compared with the patient-mediated approach, direct relative contact resulted in significantly higher uptake of genetic counseling for all relatives (63% [95% CI, 49 to 75] v 35% [95% CI, 24 to 48]) and genetic testing for first-degree relatives (62% [95% CI, 49 to 73] v 40% [95% CI, 32 to 48]). Methods of direct contact included telephone calls, letters, and e-mails; respective rates of genetic testing completion were 61% (95% CI, 51 to 70), 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59), and 48% (95% CI, 45 to 50). CONCLUSION: Most relatives at risk for hereditary cancer do not undergo cascade genetic counseling and testing, forgoing potentially life-saving medical interventions. Compared with patient-mediated contact, direct relative contact increased rates of cascade genetic counseling and testing, arguing for a shift in the care delivery paradigm, to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

Gynecologic oncology care during the COVID-19 pandemic at three affiliated New York City hospitals.

BACKGROUND: New York City was among the epicenters during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oncologists must balance plausible risks of COVID-19 infection with the recognized consequences of delaying cancer treatment, keeping in mind the capacity of the health care system. We sought to investigate treatment patterns in gynecologic cancer care during the first two months of the COVID-19 pandemic at three affiliated New York City hospitals located in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens. METHODS: A prospective registry of patients with active or presumed gynecologic cancers receiving inpatient and/or outpatient care at three affiliated New York City hospitals was maintained between March 1 and April 30, 2020. Clinical and demographic data were abstracted from the electronic medical record with a focus on oncologic treatment. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was explored to evaluate the independent effect of hospital location, race, age, medical comorbidities, cancer status and COVID-19 status on treatment modifications. RESULTS: Among 302 patients with gynecologic cancer, 117 (38.7%) experienced a COVID-19-related treatment modification (delay, change or cancellation) during the first two months of the pandemic in New York. Sixty-four patients (67.4% of those scheduled for surgery) had a COVID-19-related modification in their surgical plan, 45 (21.5% of those scheduled for systemic treatment) a modification in systemic treatment and 12 (18.8% of those scheduled for radiation) a modification in radiation. Nineteen patients (6.3%) had positive COVID-19 testing. On univariate analysis, hospital location in Queens or Brooklyn, age ≤65 years, treatment for a new cancer diagnosis versus recurrence and COVID-19 positivity were associated with treatment modifications. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, hospital location in Queens and COVID-19 positive testing were independently associated with treatment modifications. CONCLUSIONS: More than one third of patients with gynecologic cancer at three affiliated New York City hospitals experienced a treatment delay, change or cancellation during the first two months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the three New York City boroughs represented in this study, likelihood of gynecologic oncology treatment modifications correlated with the case burden of COVID-19.