OBJECTIVE: In the province of Ontario, all women diagnosed with invasive serous ovarian cancer are eligible for genetic testing for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This study aimed to determine the proportion of these women who are seen for genetic counseling and to identify potential predictors and barriers to having genetic counseling. METHODS: All women who were diagnosed with invasive serous ovarian cancer and had genetic counseling at Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) between 2002 and 2009 were identified. Logistic regressions and trend analyses explored age at diagnosis, year at diagnosis, and the time between diagnosis and genetic counseling. Genetic counseling outcomes were also examined. RESULTS: Of 623 women diagnosed with invasive serous ovarian cancer, 144 (23%) were seen for genetic counseling. As age at diagnosis increased, the likelihood of genetic counseling decreased (p=0.005). With a more recent date of diagnosis, the probability of having genetic counseling increased (p=0.032) while the time to genetic counseling decreased (p=0.001). Of women who pursued genetic testing, 31% were found to have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, 16% of whom had no family history of breast or ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of genetic testing, only a small proportion of women with invasive serous ovarian cancer were seen for genetic counseling. Over time, an improvement in the proportion of women being seen for genetic counseling was noted; however barriers to seeing women with a later age at diagnosis or those with no family history of breast or ovarian cancer clearly exist.
OBJECTIVE: In the province of Ontario, all women diagnosed with invasive serous ovarian cancer are eligible for genetic testing for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This study aimed to determine the proportion of these women who are seen for genetic counseling and to identify potential predictors and barriers to having genetic counseling. METHODS: All women who were diagnosed with invasive serous ovarian cancer and had genetic counseling at Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) between 2002 and 2009 were identified. Logistic regressions and trend analyses explored age at diagnosis, year at diagnosis, and the time between diagnosis and genetic counseling. Genetic counseling outcomes were also examined. RESULTS: Of 623 women diagnosed with invasive serous ovarian cancer, 144 (23%) were seen for genetic counseling. As age at diagnosis increased, the likelihood of genetic counseling decreased (p=0.005). With a more recent date of diagnosis, the probability of having genetic counseling increased (p=0.032) while the time to genetic counseling decreased (p=0.001). Of women who pursued genetic testing, 31% were found to have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, 16% of whom had no family history of breast or ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of genetic testing, only a small proportion of women with invasive serous ovarian cancer were seen for genetic counseling. Over time, an improvement in the proportion of women being seen for genetic counseling was noted; however barriers to seeing women with a later age at diagnosis or those with no family history of breast or ovarian cancer clearly exist.
Authors: Molly S Daniels; Sheri A Babb; Robin H King; Diana L Urbauer; Brittany A L Batte; Amanda C Brandt; Christopher I Amos; Adam H Buchanan; David G Mutch; Karen H Lu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Goli Samimi; Marcus Q Bernardini; Lawrence C Brody; Charlisse F Caga-Anan; Ian G Campbell; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Fergus J Couch; Michael Dean; Joanne A de Hullu; Susan M Domchek; Ronny Drapkin; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Michael Friedlander; Mia M Gaudet; Marline G Harmsen; Karen Hurley; Paul A James; Janice S Kwon; Felicitas Lacbawan; Stephanie Lheureux; Phuong L Mai; Leah E Mechanic; Lori M Minasian; Evan R Myers; Mark E Robson; Susan J Ramus; Lisa F Rezende; Patricia A Shaw; Thomas P Slavin; Elizabeth M Swisher; Masataka Takenaka; David D Bowtell; Mark E Sherman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Erica M Bednar; Michael T Walsh; Ellen Baker; Kimberly I Muse; Holly D Oakley; Rebekah C Krukenberg; Cara S Dresbold; Sandra B Jenkinson; Amanda L Eppolito; Kelly B Teed; Molly H Klein; Nichole A Morman; Elizabeth C Bowdish; Pauline Russ; Emaline E Wise; Julia N Cooper; Michael W Method; John W Henson; Andrew V Grainger; Banu K Arun; Karen H Lu Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: J M Cunningham; M S Cicek; N B Larson; J Davila; C Wang; M C Larson; H Song; E M Dicks; P Harrington; M Wick; B J Winterhoff; H Hamidi; G E Konecny; J Chien; M Bibikova; J-B Fan; K R Kalli; N M Lindor; B L Fridley; P P D Pharoah; E L Goode Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Anna DiNucci; Nora B Henrikson; M Cabell Jonas; Sundeep Basra; Paula Blasi; Jennifer Brown; Edward D Esplin; Dina Hassen; Jing Hao; Yirui Hu; Tracey Klinger; Ilene Ladd; Kathleen Leppig; Meredith Lewis; Michelle Meyer; Steven Ney; Arvind Ramaprasan; Katrina Romagnoli; Zachary Salvati; Aaron Scrol; Rachel Schwiter; Leigh Sheridan; Brinda Somasundaram; Pim Suwannarat; Jennifer K Wagner; Alanna K Rahm Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-06-11