Electronic medical record documentation of germline genetic evaluations in patients with ovarian cancer.

Germline genetic evaluation is indicated for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). For testing to have clinical utility, results must be documented within the electronic medical record (EMR) and accessible to providers at the point of care, which can be challenging in the context of current EMR limitations and genetic testing processes. We examined the receipt of genetics services and EMR capture of genetic testing results in patients with EOC. We conducted a retrospective chart review to examine germline genetic evaluations among patients with EOC seen by a gynecologic or medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania in 2016. EMRs were reviewed to determine: (1) if patients were referred for genetic evaluation; (2) if genetic testing was performed; (3) if results were documented in office notes, scanned third-party test reports, and/or the EMR problem list; (4) if provider notes correctly listed the variant classification. Overall, 413 (62%) of patients had documented genetic testing. Genetic testing was documented in almost all provider notes (96%) and the majority of scanned EMR reports (64%). Pathogenic variants were found in 119 (29%) individuals; the majority (70%) had genetic testing documented within EMR problem lists. Provider notes were highly accurate in describing variant classification. In this study, genetic testing was performed and documented in the EMR for most EOC patients. Approximately one-third of those tested did not have scanned test reports specifying variant found, limiting the utility of test results for cascade testing and therapeutic decisions.

Clinical Impact of a Rapid Genetic Testing Model for Advanced Prostate Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Genetic testing may alter clinical management for individuals with metastatic prostate cancer by identifying additional therapies. Traditional counseling models are unlikely to enable time-sensitive therapeutic decision-making. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and clinical impact of an alternative hereditary genetic testing model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As part of a multicenter, single-arm prospective trial, individuals with advanced prostate cancer were referred by their oncologist for testing of 14 genes associated with hereditary prostate cancer. Pretest education (brochure and video) was provided in the oncology clinic. Questionnaires assessing participant satisfaction with both pretest education and decision to undergo genetic testing were collected. A genetic counselor contacted participants by phone to obtain family history and discuss results. Medical records were queried to determine whether a change in clinical management was discussed. RESULTS: Of 501 participants consented to germline analysis, 51 (10.2%) had at least 1 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant. Change in treatment was discussed with 22/48 (45.8%) of eligible participants who tested positive. Feasibility of this model was assessed by participant satisfaction and turnaround time. Average±SD satisfaction with the pretest education (15.5±2.2, 4-20 scale) and with the decision to undergo genetic testing (17.1±2.9, 4-20 scale) were both high. Results were returned 20 days (median) after sample collection. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologist-initiated germline genetic testing in collaboration with a genetic counselor is a feasible approach to testing advanced prostate cancer patients with impactful clinical actionability. The testing model and educational material serve as resources to clinicians treating prostate cancer patients.

Uptake and acceptability of a mainstreaming model of hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To address demands for timely germline information to guide treatments, we evaluated experiences of patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer with a mainstreaming genetic testing model wherein multigene panel testing was ordered by oncologists with standardized pretest patient education, and genetic counselors delivered results and post-test genetic counseling via telephone. METHODS: Among 1,203 eligible patients, we conducted a prospective single-arm study to examine patient uptake and acceptability (via self-report surveys at baseline and three weeks and three months following result return) of this mainstreaming model. RESULTS: Only 10% of eligible patients declined participation. Among 1,054 tested participants, 10% had pathogenic variants (PV), 16% had variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and 74% had no variant identified (NV). Participants reported high initial acceptability, including high satisfaction with their testing decision. Variability over time in several outcomes existed for participants with PV or NV: those with NV experienced a temporary increase in depression (pTime < 0.001; pTime2 < 0.001), and those with PV experienced a small increase in genetic testing distress (p = 0.03). Findings suggested that result type, sex, and cancer type were also associated with outcomes including clinical depression and uncertainty. CONCLUSION: This mainstreaming model may offer a feasible approach for extending access to germline genetic information.

SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity and Seroconversion in Patients Undergoing Active Cancer-Directed Therapy.

PURPOSE: Multiple studies have demonstrated the negative impact of cancer care delays during the COVID-19 pandemic, and transmission mitigation techniques are imperative for continued cancer care delivery. We aimed to gauge the effectiveness of these measures at the University of Pennsylvania. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal study of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity and seroconversion in patients presenting to infusion centers for cancer-directed therapy between May 21, 2020, and October 8, 2020. Participants completed questionnaires and had up to five serial blood collections. RESULTS: Of 124 enrolled patients, only two (1.6%) had detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on initial blood draw, and no initially seronegative patients developed newly detectable antibodies on subsequent blood draw(s), corresponding to a seroconversion rate of 0% (95% CI, 0.0 TO 4.1%) over 14.8 person-years of follow up, with a median of 13 health care visits per patient. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that patients with cancer receiving in-person care at a facility with aggressive mitigation efforts have an extremely low likelihood of COVID-19 infection.

SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and seroconversion in patients undergoing active cancer-directed therapy.

Multiple studies have demonstrated the negative impact of cancer care delays during the COVID-19 pandemic, and transmission mitigation techniques are imperative for continued cancer care delivery. To gauge the effectiveness of these measures at the University of Pennsylvania, we conducted a longitudinal study of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity and seroconversion in patients presenting to infusion centers for cancer-directed therapy between 5/21/2020 and 10/8/2020. Participants completed questionnaires and had up to five serial blood collections. Of 124 enrolled patients, only two (1.6%) had detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on initial blood draw, and no initially seronegative patients developed newly detectable antibodies on subsequent blood draw(s), corresponding to a seroconversion rate of 0% (95%CI 0.0-4.1%) over 14.8 person-years of follow up, with a median of 13 healthcare visits per patient. These results suggest that cancer patients receiving in-person care at a facility with aggressive mitigation efforts have an extremely low likelihood of COVID-19 infection.

Genetic counseling and oncology: proposed approaches for collaborative care delivery.

Demand for cancer genetic counseling has grown rapidly in recent years as germline genomic information has integrated into cancer care. There are currently an insufficient number of genetic counselors (GC) to address genetic testing need through traditional pre- and post-test counseling. Alternative genetic counseling frameworks, discussed here, are under study to increase access to genetic testing while optimizing the skillsets of existent master's-trained GCs.