Patient Location and Disparities in Access to Fertility Preservation for Women With Gynecologic or Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of geographic factors on fertility-sparing treatment or assisted reproductive technology (ART) utilization among women with gynecologic or breast cancers. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of reproductive-aged patients (18-45 years) with early-stage cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancer or stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2015 using linked data from the California Cancer Registry, the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate associations between distance from fertility and gynecologic oncology clinics, as well as California Healthy Places Index score (a Census-level composite community health score), and ART or fertility-sparing treatment receipt. RESULTS: We identified 7,612 women with gynecologic cancer and 35,992 women with breast cancer. Among all patients, 257 (0.6%) underwent ART. Among patients with gynecologic cancer, 1,676 (22.0%) underwent fertility-sparing treatment. Stratified by quartiles, residents who lived at increasing distances from gynecologic oncology or fertility clinics had decreased odds of undergoing fertility-sparing treatment (gynecologic oncology clinics: Q2, odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% CI, 0.63-0.93, P=.007; Q4, OR 0.72, 95% CI, 0.56-0.94, P=.016) (fertility clinics: Q3, OR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.65-0.97, P=.025; Q4, OR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.52-0.88, P=.004), whereas this relationship was not observed among women who resided within other quartiles (gynecologic oncology clinics: Q3, OR 0.81 95% CI, 0.65-1.01, P=.07; fertility clinics: Q2, OR 0.87 95% CI, 0.73-1.05, P=.15). Individuals who lived in communities with the highest (51st-100th percentile) California Healthy Places Index scores had greater odds of undergoing fertility-sparing treatment (OR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.06-1.57, P=.01; OR 1.66, 95% CI, 1.35-2.04, P=.001, respectively). The relationship between California Healthy Places Index scores and ART was even more pronounced (Q2 OR 1.9, 95% CI, 0.99-3.64, P=.05; Q3 OR 2.86, 95% CI, 1.54-5.33, P<.001; Q4 OR 3.41, 95% CI, 1.83-6.35, P<.001). CONCLUSION: Geographic disparities affect fertility-sparing treatment and ART rates among women with gynecologic or breast cancer. By acknowledging geographic factors, health care systems can ensure equitable access to fertility-preservation services.

Potential of molecular classification to guide fertility-sparing management among young patients with endometrial cancer.

The traditional histological classification system for endometrial carcinoma falls short in addressing the disease's molecular heterogeneity, prompting the need for alternative stratification methods. Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) has emerged as a clinically efficient tool to categorize endometrial cancers according to mismatch repair deficiency, POLE exonuclease domain mutations, and p53 expression. However, the application of this classification to fertility-sparing treatments remains unexplored, and current guidelines lack specificity in how it should be used. In this review, we summarize the available literature and establish the framework for future investigations focused on molecular profiling-based risk assessment of endometrial cancer, with the goal of utilizing precision medicine to optimally counsel patients seeking fertility-sparing treatment. While the available evidence is limited and of low quality, it does provide insights and frames future perspectives for managing fertility-sparing approaches on the basis of molecular subtypes. Evidence suggests that mismatch repair-deficient tumors are likely to recur despite progestin therapy, emphasizing the need for alternative treatments, with targeted therapies being a new landscape that still needs to be explored. Tumors with POLE mutations exhibit a favorable prognosis, but the safety of hysteroscopic resection alone requires further investigation. p53 abnormal tumors have an unfavorable prognosis, raising questions about their suitability for fertility-sparing treatment. Lastly, the no specific molecular profile (or p53 wild-type) tumors, while having a relatively good prognosis, are heterogeneous and require more precise biomarkers to effectively guide therapy for those with poorer prognoses. Addressing these research gaps will lead to more precise guidelines to ensure optimal selection for fertility-sparing treatment.

Experiences of Family Communication and Cascade Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer in Medically Underserved Populations-A Qualitative Study.

We sought to explore the intrafamilial communication and cascade genetic testing (CGT) experiences of patients with hereditary cancer from diverse, medically underserved populations and their relatives. Participants included patients receiving oncology care at an urban, safety net hospital in Texas or comprehensive cancer center in Alabama and their first-degree relatives. In-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews were completed wherein patients shared their experiences with genetic counseling (GC), genetic testing (GT), and communicating their results to relatives. Relatives shared their experiences receiving information from the patient and considering CGT. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and themes were identified. Of 25 participating patients, most recalled key aspects of GC and their GT results. Most (80%) patients shared their results with relatives, but only some relatives underwent CGT; patients reported low perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer as a common barrier to CGT for their relatives. Of 16 participating relatives, most reported feeling distress upon learning the patient's GT results. Relatives were fearful of learning their own CGT results but identified prevention and early detection as CGT benefits. Interviews identified opportunities during family communication to improve relatives' perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer. Tailored resources may support patients and relatives experiencing distress and fear during GT. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study of intrafamilial communication and cascade genetic testing experiences of patients with hereditary cancer and their relatives from diverse, medically underserved populations identified relatives' perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer risks, distress, and fear as frequent reactions and barriers to testing. These results may inform future hereditary cancer prevention efforts.

All-cause and cancer-specific mortality after fertility-sparing surgery for stage IA and IC epithelial ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare all-cause and cancer-specific mortality between women who underwent fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) versus standard surgery for stage IA and IC epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Reproductive aged patients (18-45) with stage IA or IC epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2015 were identified in the California Cancer Registry. FSS was defined as retention of the contralateral ovary and the uterus, and standard surgery included at least removal of both ovaries and the uterus. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the secondary outcome was cancer-specific mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to create two groups balanced on covariates of interest. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards analysis were used to model survival outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1119 women who met inclusion criteria, 390 (34.9%) underwent FSS. IPTW yielded a balanced cohort of 394 women who underwent FSS and 723 women who underwent standard surgery. Among patients who underwent FSS, there were 45 deaths corresponding to an 85.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.92) 10-year all-cause survival probability, compared to 81 deaths and 86.4% 10-year all-cause survival probability (95% CI 0.83-0.90) among patients who underwent standard surgery. FSS was not associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.72-1.49) or cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.50, 95%CI 0.97-2.31). CONCLUSIONS: Among reproductive-aged patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer fertility-sparing surgery was not associated with an increased risk of death compared to standard surgery.

MILACC study: could undetected lymph node micrometastases have impacted recurrence rate in the LACC trial?

OBJECTIVE: The etiology of inferior oncologic outcomes associated with minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer remains unknown. Manipulation of lymph nodes with previously unrecognized low-volume disease might explain this finding. We re-analyzed lymph nodes by pathologic ultrastaging in node-negative patients who recurred in the LACC (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer) trial. METHODS: Included patients were drawn from the LACC trial database, had negative lymph nodes on routine pathologic evaluation, and recurred to the abdomen and/or pelvis. Patients without recurrence or without available lymph node tissue were excluded. Paraffin tissue blocks and slides from all lymph nodes removed by lymphadenectomy were re-analyzed per standard ultrastaging protocol aimed at the detection of micrometastases (>0.2 mm and ≤2 mm) and isolated tumor cells (clusters up to 0.2 mm or <200 cells). RESULTS: The study included 20 patients with median age of 42 (range 30-68) years. Most patients were randomized to minimally invasive surgery (90%), had squamous cell carcinoma (65%), FIGO 2009 stage 1B1 (95%), grade 2 (60%) disease, had no adjuvant treatment (75%), and had a single site of recurrence (55%), most commonly at the vaginal cuff (45%). Only one patient had pelvic sidewall recurrence in the absence of other disease sites. The median number of lymph nodes analyzed per patient was 18.5 (range 4-32) for a total of 412 lymph nodes. A total of 621 series and 1242 slides were reviewed centrally by the ultrastaging protocol. No metastatic disease of any size was found in any lymph node. CONCLUSIONS: There were no lymph node low-volume metastases among patients with initially negative lymph nodes who recurred in the LACC trial. Therefore, it is unlikely that manipulation of lymph nodes containing clinically undetected metastases is the underlying cause of the higher local recurrence risk in the minimally invasive arm of the LACC trial.

Assessing gaps in motherhood after cancer: development and psychometric testing of the Survivorship Oncofertility Barriers Scale.

OBJECTIVE: With a growing population of young cancer survivors, there is an increasing need to address the gaps in evidence regarding cancer survivors' obstetric outcomes, fertility care access, and experiences. As part of a large research program, this study engaged survivors and experts in co-developing and testing the validity, reliability, acceptability, and feasibility of a scale to assess survivor-reported barriers to motherhood after cancer. METHODS: Scale items were developed based on literature and expert review of 226 reproductive health items, and six experience and focus groups with 26 survivors of breast and gynecological cancers. We then invited 128 survivors to complete the scale twice, 48 hours apart, and assessed the scale's psychometric properties using exploratory factor analyses including reliability, known-group validity, and convergent validity. RESULTS: Item development identified three primary themes: multifaceted barriers for cancer survivors; challenging decisions about whether and how to pursue motherhood; and a timely need for evidence about obstetric outcomes. Retained items were developed into a 24-item prototype scale with four subscales. Prototype testing showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.71) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.70). Known-group validity was supported; the scale discriminated between groups by age (x=70.0 for patients ≥35 years old vs 54.5 for patients <35 years old, p=0.02) and years since diagnosis (x=71.5 for ≥6 years vs 54.3 for<6 years, p=0.01). The financial subscale was correlated with the Economic StraiN and Resilience in Cancer measure of financial toxicity (ρ=0.39, p<0.001). The scale was acceptable and feasibly delivered online. The final 22-item scale is organized in four subscales: personal, medical, relational, and financial barriers to motherhood. CONCLUSION: The Survivorship Oncofertility Barriers Scale demonstrated validity, reliability, and was acceptable and feasible when delivered online. Implementing the scale can gather the data needed to inform shared decision making and to address disparities in fertility care for survivors.

Minimally invasive interval debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Assess outcomes of interval debulking surgery (IDS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with laparotomy in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer between 2013 and 2018 who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and IDS were identified in the National Cancer Database. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were 5-year survival, 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality, extent of surgery, residual disease, hospitalization duration, surgical conversions, and unplanned readmissions. Propensity score matching was used to compare MIS and laparotomy for IDS. Association of treatment approach with overall survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. Sensitivity analysis was conducted for effect of unmeasured confounders. RESULTS: A total of 7897 patients met inclusion criteria; 2021 (25.6%) underwent MIS. Percentage undergoing MIS increased from 20.3%-29.0% over the study period. After propensity score matching, median overall survival was 46.7 months in the MIS group versus 41.0 months in the laparotomy group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.86 (95%CI 0.79-0.94)]. Five-year survival probability was higher in MIS versus laparotomy (38.3% vs 34.8%, p < 0.01). There was lower 30- and 90-day mortality (0.3% vs 0.7% [p = 0.04] and 1.4% vs 2.5% [p = 0.01], respectively), shorter length of stay (median 3 vs 5 days, p < 0.01), lower residual disease (23.9% vs 26.7%, p < 0.01), and lower additional cytoreductive procedures (59.3% vs 70.8%, p < 0.01) in MIS compared to laparotomy, with similar rates of unplanned readmission (2.7% vs 3.1%, p = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo IDS by MIS have similar overall survival and decreased morbidity compared with laparotomy.

Financial toxicity: A practical review for gynecologic oncology teams to understand and address patient-level financial burdens.

Financial toxicity describes the adverse impact patients experience from the monetary and time costs of cancer care. The financial burden patients experience comes from substantially increased out-of-pocket spending that often occurs concurrent with reduced income due to sick leave from work. Financial toxicity is common affecting approximately half of patients with a gynecological cancer depending on the validated instrument used for measurement. Financial toxicity is experienced by patients in three domains: economic hardship affecting patients' material conditions (i.e., medical debt), psychological response (i.e., distress), and health-related coping behaviors that patients adopt (i.e., foregoing care due to costs). Higher financial toxicity among cancer patients has been associated with decreased quality of life, impaired adherence to recommended care, and worse overall survival. In this review, we describe the current literature on financial toxicity, including how it can be assessed with validated tools, the downstream impact on patients, risk factors, and employment concerns of survivors. Whenever possible, we highlight data from research featuring patients with gynecologic cancer specifically. We also review studies with interventions aimed to mitigate financial toxicity and offer the reader real world examples of interventions currently being used. Lastly, we provide an overview of health policy developments relevant to financial toxicity and advocate for innovation in the development and implementation of strategies to decrease the financial toxicity patients experience following a diagnosis of gynecologic cancer.

Disparities in the use of assisted reproductive technologies after breast cancer: a population-based study.

PURPOSE: Equitable access to oncofertility services is a key component of cancer survivorship care, but factors affecting access and use remain understudied. METHODS: To describe disparities in assisted reproductive technology (ART) use among women with breast cancer in California, we conducted a population-based cohort study using linked oncology, ART, and demographic data. We identified women age 18-45 years diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2000 and 2015. The primary outcome was ART use-including oocyte/embryo cryopreservation or embryo transfer-after cancer diagnosis. We used log-binomial regression to estimate prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to identify factors associated with ART use. RESULTS: Among 36,468 women with invasive breast cancer, 206 (0.56%) used ART. Women significantly less likely to use ART were age 36-45 years at diagnosis (vs. 18-35 years: PR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.13-0.22); non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic (vs. non-Hispanic White: PR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.21-0.46); had at least one child (vs. no children: adjusted PR [aPR] = 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.60); or lived in non-urban areas (vs. urban: aPR = 0.28, 95% CI 0.10-0.75), whereas women more likely to use ART lived in high-SES areas (vs. low-/middle-SES areas: aPR = 2.93, 95% CI 2.04-4.20) or had private insurance (vs. public/other insurance: aPR = 2.95, 95% CI 1.59-5.49). CONCLUSION: Women with breast cancer who are socially or economically disadvantaged, or who already had a child, are substantially less likely to use ART after diagnosis. The implementation of policies or programs targeting more equitable access to fertility services for women with cancer is warranted.

Disparities in Fertility-Sparing Treatment and Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology After a Diagnosis of Cervical, Ovarian, or Endometrial Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the presence of sociodemographic and clinical disparities in fertility-sparing treatment and assisted reproductive technology (ART) use among patients with a history of cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancer. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of patients aged 18-45 years who were diagnosed with cervical cancer (stage IA, IB), endometrial cancer (grade 1, stage IA, IB), or ovarian cancer (stage IA, IC) between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2015, using linked data from the CCR (California Cancer Registry), the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The primary outcome was receipt of fertility-sparing treatment , defined as surgical or medical treatment to preserve the uterus and at least one ovary. The secondary outcome was fertility preservation , defined as ART use after cancer diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds ratios and 95% CIs for the association between fertility-sparing treatment and exposures of interest: age at diagnosis, race and ethnicity, health insurance, socioeconomic status, rurality, and parity. RESULTS: We identified 7,736 patients who were diagnosed with cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancer with eligible histology. There were 850 (18.8%) fertility-sparing procedures among 4,521 cases of cervical cancer, 108 (7.2%) among 1,504 cases of endometrial cancer, and 741 (43.3%) among 1,711 cases of ovarian cancer. Analyses demonstrated nonuniform patterns of sociodemographic disparities by cancer type for fertility-sparing treatment, and ART. Fertility-sparing treatment was more likely among young patients, overall, and of those in racial and ethnic minority groups among survivors of cervical and ovarian cancer. Use of ART was low (n=52) and was associated with a non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity designation, being of younger age (18-35 years), and having private insurance. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that clinical and sociodemographic disparities exist in the receipt of fertility-sparing treatment and ART use among patients with a history of cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancer.

Barriers to completion of cascade genetic testing: how can we improve the uptake of testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome?

Cascade testing for familial cancer syndromes has historically been difficult to execute. As part of a facilitated cascade testing pathway, we evaluated barriers to completion of cascade testing. Our previously published study evaluated a facilitated cascade testing pathway whereby a genetics team facilitated at-risk relative (ARR) cascade testing through telephone genetic counseling and mailed saliva kit testing. This follow-up study evaluated barriers to completion of cascade genetic testing through six-month follow-up telephone interviews. Probands identified 114 ARRs, of whom 97 were successfully contacted by telephone. Among those contacted, 83 (86%) reported interest in genetic testing and 14 (14%) declined. Among those reporting interest in testing, 71% (69/83) completed testing. Follow-up telephone interviews revealed that 14 ARRs did not complete testing despite reporting interest for the following reasons: concern about genetic discrimination, fear of a positive result and belief that the pathogenic variant was not relevant to his/her health. Five ARRs reported that they remained interested in testing and the telephone call prompted completion of testing. Even when facilitated by a medical team with prioritization of relative convenience, significant barriers to cascade testing ARRs for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome persist due to concern about genetic discrimination, cost, and fear of positive test results.

Obstetric and Neonatal Outcomes 1 or More Years After a Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate obstetric and neonatal outcomes of the first live birth conceived 1 or more years after breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a population-based study to compare live births between women with a history of breast cancer (case group) and matched women with no cancer history (control group). Individuals in the case and control groups were identified using linked data from the California Cancer Registry and California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development data sets. Individuals in the case group were diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age 18-45 years between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2012, and conceived 12 or more months after breast cancer diagnosis. Individuals in the control group were covariate-matched women without a history of breast cancer who delivered during 2000-2012. The primary outcome was preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation, small for gestational age (SGA), cesarean delivery, severe maternal morbidity, and neonatal morbidity. Subgroup analyses were used to assess the effect of time from initial treatment to fertilization and receipt of additional adjuvant therapy before pregnancy on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of 30,021 women aged 18-45 years diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer during 2000-2012, 553 met the study inclusion criteria. Those with a history of breast cancer and matched women in the control group had similar odds of preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI 0.95-1.74), preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.34-1.79), delivering an SGA neonate (less than the 5th percentile: OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.35-1.03; less than the 10th percentile: OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.68-1.30), and experiencing severe maternal morbidity (OR 1.61; 95% CI 0.74-3.50). Patients with a history of breast cancer had higher odds of undergoing cesarean delivery (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53); however, their offspring did not have increased odds of neonatal morbidity compared with women in the control group (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.81-1.62). CONCLUSION: Breast cancer 1 or more years before fertilization was not strongly associated with obstetric and neonatal complications.

What happens in the long term: Uptake of cancer surveillance and prevention strategies among at-risk relatives with pathogenic variants detected via cascade testing.

BACKGROUND: Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes offers affected relatives the opportunity to pursue cancer screening and risk-reducing surgery and thus reduces morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to measure the long-term utilization of targeted cancer prevention and quality of life among at-risk relatives offered clinician-facilitated cascade genetic testing. METHODS: In a pilot study, at-risk relatives of patients with a hereditary cancer syndrome were contacted directly by the clinical team and offered telephone genetic counseling and genetic testing via an at-home, mailed saliva kit. Two-year follow-up results evaluating the use of targeted cancer prevention strategies and the quality of life for enrolled relatives were reported. Quality-of-life was measured with validated surveys, and scores were compared to the time of initial contact by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Ninety-five at-risk relatives were enrolled in the initial pilot study, and 72 (76%) participated in the 2-year follow-up; 57 of these (79%) had completed genetic testing. Twenty-five of those 57 relatives (44%) were found to harbor an inherited pathogenic variant. Guideline-based cancer surveillance was recommended to 18 relatives; 13 (72%) completed at least one recommended screening, and six (33%) completed all recommended screenings. Risk-reducing surgery was recommended to 10 relatives; four (40%) completed a total of eight procedures. Quality-of-life surveys demonstrated low levels of anxiety, depression, distress, and uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year follow-up of the original pilot study revealed that clinician-facilitated cascade testing resulted in genetically targeted cancer screening and prevention with preserved quality of life. These results, to be confirmed by larger randomized controlled trials, suggest that medical systems should consider supporting clinician-facilitated cascade testing programs.

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.

Survival outcomes following pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies after breast cancer: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine the impact of pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies (ART) on breast-cancer-specific survival among breast cancer survivors. METHODS: The authors performed a cohort study using a novel data linkage from the California Cancer Registry, the California birth cohort, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System data sets. They performed risk-set matching in women with stages I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2012. For each pregnant woman, comparable women who were not pregnant at that point but were otherwise similar based on observed characteristics were matched at the time of pregnancy. After matching, Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of pregnancy with breast-cancer-specific survival. We repeated these analyses for women who received ART. RESULTS: Among 30,021 women with breast cancer, 553 had a pregnancy and 189 attempted at least one cycle of ART. In Cox proportional hazards modeling, the pregnancy group had a higher 5-year disease-specific survival rate; 95.6% in the pregnancy group and 90.6% in the nonpregnant group (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.77). In women with hormone receptor-positive cancer, we found similar results (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.2-0.91). In the ART analysis, there was no difference in survival between groups; the 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 96.9% in the ART group and 94.1% in the non-ART group (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.17-1.13). CONCLUSION: Pregnancy and ART are not associated with worse survival in women with breast cancer. LAY SUMMARY: We sought to determine the impact of pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies (ART) among breast cancer survivors. We performed a study of 30,021 women by linking available data from California and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System. For each pregnant woman, we matched at the time of pregnancy comparable women who were not pregnant at that point but were otherwise similar based on observed characteristics. We repeated these analyses for women who received ART. We found that pregnancy and ART were not associated with worse survival.

Interventions to improve delivery of cancer genetics services in the United States: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: Interventions that decrease barriers and improve clinical processes can increase patient access to guideline-recommended cancer genetics services. We sought to identify and describe interventions to improve patient receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services in the United States. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 1, 2000 to February 12, 2020. Eligible articles reported interventions to improve the identification, referral, genetic counseling (GC), and genetic testing (GT) of patients in the United States. We independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full-text articles. Data were synthesized by grouping articles by clinical process. RESULTS: Of 44 included articles, 17 targeted identification of eligible patients, 14 targeted referral, 15 targeted GC, and 16 targeted GT. Patient identification interventions included universal tumor testing and screening of medical/family history. Referral interventions included medical record system adaptations, standardizing processes, and provider notifications. GC interventions included supplemental patient education, integrated GC within oncology clinics, appointment coordination, and alternative service delivery models. One article directly targeted the GT process by implementing provider-coordinated testing. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified and described interventions to improve US patients' access to and receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services.

Employment disruption among women with gynecologic cancers.

BACKGROUND: Adverse employment outcomes pose significant challenges for cancer patients, though data patients with gynecologic cancers are sparse. We evaluated the decrease in employment among patients in the year following the diagnosis of a gynecologic cancer compared with population-based controls. METHODS: Patients aged 18 to 63 years old, who were diagnosed with cervical, ovarian, endometrial, or vulvar cancer between January 2009 and December 2017, were identified in Truven MarketScan, an insurance claims database of commercially insured patients in the USA. Patients working full- or part-time at diagnosis were matched to population-based controls in a 1:4 ratio via propensity score. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the risk of employment disruption in patients versus controls. RESULTS: We identified 7446 women with gynecologic cancers (191 vulvar, 941 cervical, 1839 ovarian, and 4475 endometrial). Although most continued working following diagnosis, 1579 (21.2%) changed from full- or part-time employment to long-term disability, retirement, or work cessation. In an adjusted model, older age, the presence of comorbidities, and treatment with surgery plus adjuvant therapy versus surgery alone were associated with an increased risk of employment disruption (p<0.0003, p=0.01, and p<0.0001, respectively) among patients with gynecologic cancer. In the propensity-matched cohort, patients with gynecologic cancers had over a threefold increased risk of employment disruption relative to controls (HR 3.67, 95% CI 3.44 to 3.95). CONCLUSION: Approximately 21% of patients with gynecologic cancer experienced a decrease in employment in the year after diagnosis. These patients had over a threefold increased risk of employment disruption compared with controls.

Employment outcomes among cancer patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cancer diagnosis and treatment can lead to disruptions in employment, which can, in turn, lead to financial problems and uninsurance. We used a nationally representative survey to describe predictors of non-employment among cancer patients compared to a matched cohort of individuals without cancer. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of the 2005-2018 nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We included respondents aged 18-64 and identified the cohort with current cancer by healthcare utilization related to a cancer diagnosis in the given year. We propensity-score matched controls to cancer cases in a 2:1 ratio. Survey weights were applied to generate national estimates of non-employment among the study cohort compared to the overall U.S. POPULATION: The Adjusted Wald test was used to compare employment outcomes between groups. Weighted multivariable linear regression was utilized to assess factors independently associated with non-employment. RESULTS: An estimated annual mean of 3.9 million cancer patients in the U.S. were included. Relative to controls, cancer patients had higher rates of part-year (36.0% vs 28.3%, P < 0.0001) and full-year non-employment (22.7% vs 17.5%, P < 0.0001). In a multivariable model, cancer diagnosis was associated with a 6.8% higher risk of part-year non-employment, 4.1% higher risk of full-year non-employment, and 14.8% lower individual earnings relative to the matched U.S. POPULATION: Sub-groups of cancer patients at high risk of negative employment outcomes included those enrolled in Medicaid, those without a high school degree, and those with high healthcare utilization. Low family income was the strongest predictor of non-employment. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients were at greater risk of non-employment relative to matched controls and adverse employment outcomes disproportionately affected cancer patients from vulnerable populations.