S Lheureux1, K Karakasis1, P Harter2, C Scott3, M Bacon4, J Bryce5, N Le Fur6, E Pujade-Lauraine7, A M Oza8. 1. Division of Medical Oncology and Haematology, Bras Family Drug Development Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Kliniken-Essen-Mitte, AGO, Essen, Germany. 3. The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Australia. 4. Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG), Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 5. Clinical Trials Unit, MITO Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori - Fondazione G Pascale, Napoli, Italy. 6. Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, Arcagy-GINECO, Paris, France. 7. Université Paris Descartes, AP-HP, Paris, France. 8. Division of Medical Oncology and Haematology, Bras Family Drug Development Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: amit.oza@uhn.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Given the implications for clinical care and prevention in identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation, the objective of this study was to determine current BRCA1/2 testing practices in ovarian cancer and to identify future directions. METHODS: Two parallel complementary web-based surveys were sent by email to representatives of Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) and to referral centers in countries with and without GCIG membership. Questions posed addressed indications of BRCA1/2 testing for ovarian cancer; the implication of genetic counseling; and prevention strategies employed. RESULTS: Among the GCIG, 22 collaborative groups from 19 countries answered the survey. For the complementary survey, 22 referral centers replied. Findings show criteria to offer germline BRCA1/2 testing are mixed; 55% of GCIG members based testing decisions on histology and, among all respondents the main testing criterion remains family history. Typically, genetic counseling is scheduled prior to the genetic testing; however, if negative, results may not be communicated by the genetic counselor. Time between testing and communicating results varies widely between the groups. Lastly, recommendations to relatives regarding risk reduction surgery are inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the need for collaborative efforts to devise international guidelines around BRCA1/2 testing in ovarian cancer to ensure consistent BRCA1/2 screening practices are adopted. Clinical practice is evolving rapidly and as BRCA1/2 testing is expected to become more widespread, new approaches are required. Coordinating BRCA1/2 testing practices is crucial in terms of care for the patient diagnosed with ovarian cancer but also towards cancer prevention for affected family members.
PURPOSE: Given the implications for clinical care and prevention in identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation, the objective of this study was to determine current BRCA1/2 testing practices in ovarian cancer and to identify future directions. METHODS: Two parallel complementary web-based surveys were sent by email to representatives of Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) and to referral centers in countries with and without GCIG membership. Questions posed addressed indications of BRCA1/2 testing for ovarian cancer; the implication of genetic counseling; and prevention strategies employed. RESULTS: Among the GCIG, 22 collaborative groups from 19 countries answered the survey. For the complementary survey, 22 referral centers replied. Findings show criteria to offer germline BRCA1/2 testing are mixed; 55% of GCIG members based testing decisions on histology and, among all respondents the main testing criterion remains family history. Typically, genetic counseling is scheduled prior to the genetic testing; however, if negative, results may not be communicated by the genetic counselor. Time between testing and communicating results varies widely between the groups. Lastly, recommendations to relatives regarding risk reduction surgery are inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the need for collaborative efforts to devise international guidelines around BRCA1/2 testing in ovarian cancer to ensure consistent BRCA1/2 screening practices are adopted. Clinical practice is evolving rapidly and as BRCA1/2 testing is expected to become more widespread, new approaches are required. Coordinating BRCA1/2 testing practices is crucial in terms of care for the patient diagnosed with ovarian cancer but also towards cancer prevention for affected family members.
Authors: Nicoletta Colombo; Gloria Huang; Giovanni Scambia; Eva Chalas; Sandro Pignata; James Fiorica; Linda Van Le; Sharad Ghamande; Santiago González-Santiago; Isabel Bover; Begoña Graña Suárez; Andrew Green; Philippe Huot-Marchand; Yann Bourhis; Sudeep Karve; Christopher Blakeley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Katherine Karakasis; Julia V Burnier; Valerie Bowering; Amit M Oza; Stephanie Lheureux Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: George U Eleje; Ahizechukwu C Eke; Ifeanyichukwu U Ezebialu; Joseph I Ikechebelu; Emmanuel O Ugwu; Onyinye O Okonkwo Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-08-24