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 has 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 where precancer screening, chemoprevention and/or risk reducing surgery may be beneficial. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was 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 was used to simulate the lifespan of patients. Setting was Obstetrical clinics in U.S., and Participants were a theoretical cohort of 1,429,074 pregnant patients who annually undergo expanded carrier screening. RESULTS: Among our cohort, BRCA1 testing resulted in identification of an additional 3,716 BRCA1 patients, prevention of 1,394 breast and ovarian cancer cases, and 1,084 fewer deaths. BRCA1 testing was a cost-effective strategy compared to no BRCA1 testing with an ICER of $86,001/QALYs. In a one-way sensitivity analysis, we varied the prevalence of BRCA1 in the population from 0% up to 20% and found that BRCA1 testing continued to be the cost-effective strategy until prevalence rate was reduced to 0.16% (Table S1). Multiple additional sensitivity analyses did not substantially impact 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.

Partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) pathogenic variants and ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 20% of ovarian cancers are due to an underlying germline pathogenic variant. While pathogenic variants in several genes have been well-established in the development of hereditary ovarian cancer (e.g. BRCA1/2, RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1, mismatch repair genes), the role of partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) remains uncertain. We sought to utilize meta-analysis to evaluate the association between PALB2 germline pathogenic variants and ovarian cancer. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating multigene panel testing in people with ovarian cancer. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies met inclusion criteria, including 48,194 people with ovarian cancer and information available on germline PALB2 pathogenic variant status. Among people with ovarian cancer and available PALB2 sequencing data, 0.4% [95% CI 0.3-0.4] harbored a germline pathogenic variant in the PALB2 gene. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for carrying a PALB2 pathogenic variant among the ovarian cancer population of 20,474 individuals who underwent germline testing was 2.48 [95% CI 1.57-3.90] relative to 123,883 controls. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that the pooled OR for harboring a PALB2 germline pathogenic variant among people with ovarian cancer compared to the general population is 2.48 [95% CI 1.57-3.90]. Prospective studies evaluating the role of germline PALB2 pathogenic variants in the development of ovarian cancer are warranted.

Attitudes and beliefs regarding complementary and alternative medicine in a diverse gynecologic oncology patient population.

Objectives: To measure prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in a diverse gynecologic oncology patient population and evaluate how attitudes and beliefs regarding CAM relate to demographic factors. Methods: A validated Attitudes and Beliefs about Complementary and Alternative Medicine (ABCAM) survey was distributed to patients with gynecologic malignancy. Results were evaluated using Pearson's Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon ranks sum and Kruskal-Wallace tests for non-normally distributed variables. Results: One-hundred thirty patients completed the ABCAM survey. Self-reported race and ethnicity included Asian or Pacific Islander (n = 54; 42%), Hispanic/Latino (n = 23; 18%), White (n = 21; 16%), Black or African American (n = 20; 15%), American Indian/Alaska Native (n = 8; 6.2%) and Other (n = 4; 3.1%). Twenty-four respondents (18%) reported use of CAM. There was a significant difference in expected benefits to CAM between respondents of different races/ethnicities (p < 0.001). Black and Asian respondents reported greater expected benefit to CAM. Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and White respondents reported fewer expected benefits. A significant association was found between perceived barriers to CAM and race/ethnicity (p 0.043), with Asian, Hispanic/Latino and White respondents perceiving more barriers while Black and American Indian/Alaskan Natives reported perceiving fewer barriers to CAM. Respondents with incomes greater than $100,000 reported fewer barriers to CAM. Conclusions: Use of CAM among gynecologic oncology patients is lower than previously thought. Income, race, and ethnicity inform patient engagement with CAM and can be used to better tailor the provision of evidence-based CAM interventions to benefit a greater number of gynecologic cancer patients.

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.

Patient perspectives on risk-reducing salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy for ovarian cancer risk-reduction: A systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing evidence suggests the fallopian tube as the site of origin of BRCA1/2-associated high-grade ovarian cancers. Several ongoing trials are evaluating salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (RRSDO) for ovarian cancer risk reduction and patients are beginning to ask their clinicians about this surgical option. This study sought to systematically review the available literature examining patient preferences regarding RRSDO and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) to provide clinicians with an understanding of patient values, concerns, and priorities surrounding ovarian cancer risk-reducing surgery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42023400690). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating acceptance and surgical decision-making regarding RRSO and RRSDO among patients with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. RESULTS: The search yielded 239 results, among which six publications met the systematic review inclusion criteria. Acceptance of RRSDO was evaluated in all studies and ranged from 34% to 71%. Factors positively impacting patients' acceptance of RRSDO included: avoidance of surgical menopause, preservation of fertility, concerns about sexual dysfunction, family history of breast cancer, and avoidance of hormone replacement therapy. Factors limiting this acceptance reported by patients included concerns regarding oncologic safety, surgical timing, and surgical complications. CONCLUSION: To date, few studies have explored patient perspectives surrounding RRSDO. Collectively, the limited data available indicate a high level of acceptance among BRCA1/2 carriers, and provides insight regarding both facilitating and limiting factors associated with patient preferences to better equip clinicians in the counseling and support of their patients.

Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 1% of individuals have a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, however, the majority are not aware. Collecting a cancer family history (CFH) can triage patients to receive genetic testing. To rigorously assess different methods of CFH collection, we compared a web-based tool (WBT) to usual care (clinician collects CFH) in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: New gynecologic oncology patients (seen 9/2019-9/2021) were randomized to one of three arms in a 2:2:1 allocation ratio: 1) usual care clinician CFH collection, 2) WBT completed at home, or 3) WBT completed in office. The WBT generated a cancer-focused pedigree and scores on eight validated cancer risk models. The primary outcome was collection of an adequate CFH (based on established guidelines) with usual care versus the WBT. RESULTS: We enrolled 250 participants (usual care - 110; WBT home - 105; WBT office - 35 [closed early due to COVID-19]). Within WBT arms, 109 (78%) participants completed the tool, with higher completion for office versus home (33 [94%] vs. 76 [72%], P = 0.008). Among participants completing the WBT, 63 (58%) had an adequate CFH versus 5 (5%) for usual care (P < 0.001). Participants completing the WBT were significantly more likely to complete genetic counseling (34 [31%] vs. 15 [14%], P = 0.002) and genetic testing (20 [18%] vs. 9 [8%], P = 0.029). Participant and provider WBT experience was favorable. CONCLUSIONS: WBTs for CFH collection are a promising application of health information technology, resulting in more comprehensive CFH and a significantly greater percentage of participants completing genetic counseling and testing.