Leslie M Randall1, Bhavana Pothuri2, Elizabeth M Swisher3, John P Diaz4, Adam Buchanan5, Catherine T Witkop6, C Bethan Powell7, Ellen Blair Smith8, Mark E Robson9, Jeff Boyd10, Robert L Coleman11, Karen Lu11. 1. University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States. Electronic address: lrandall@uci.edu. 2. New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, United States. 3. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. 4. Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, United States. 5. Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA, United States. 6. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, United States. 7. Northern California Kaiser Permanente Gynecologic Oncology, San Francisco, CA, United States. 8. Texas Oncology, P.A., Austin, TX, United States. 9. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. 10. Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, United States; Florida International University, Miami, FL, United States. 11. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess current practice, advise minimum standards, and identify educational gaps relevant to genetic screening, counseling, and testing of women affected by gynecologic cancers. METHODS: The Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) organized a multidisciplinary summit that included representatives from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Society Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC), and patient advocacy groups, BrightPink and Facing our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE). Three subject areas were discussed: care delivery models for genetic testing, barriers to genetic testing, and educational opportunities for providers of genetic testing. RESULTS: The group endorsed current SGO, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and NSGC genetic testing guidelines for women affected with ovarian, tubal, peritoneal cancers, or DNA mismatch repair deficient endometrial cancer. Three main areas of unmet need were identified: timely and universal genetic testing for women with ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers; education regarding minimum standards for genetic counseling and testing; and barriers to implementation of testing of both affected individuals as well as cascade testing of family members. Consensus building among all stakeholders resulted in an action plan to address gaps in education of gynecologic oncology providers and delivery of cancer genetics care.
OBJECTIVE: To assess current practice, advise minimum standards, and identify educational gaps relevant to genetic screening, counseling, and testing of women affected by gynecologic cancers. METHODS: The Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) organized a multidisciplinary summit that included representatives from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Society Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC), and patient advocacy groups, BrightPink and Facing our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE). Three subject areas were discussed: care delivery models for genetic testing, barriers to genetic testing, and educational opportunities for providers of genetic testing. RESULTS: The group endorsed current SGO, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and NSGC genetic testing guidelines for women affected with ovarian, tubal, peritoneal cancers, or DNA mismatch repair deficient endometrial cancer. Three main areas of unmet need were identified: timely and universal genetic testing for women with ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers; education regarding minimum standards for genetic counseling and testing; and barriers to implementation of testing of both affected individuals as well as cascade testing of family members. Consensus building among all stakeholders resulted in an action plan to address gaps in education of gynecologic oncology providers and delivery of cancer genetics care.
Authors: Melissa K Frey; Ryan M Kahn; Eloise Chapman-Davis; Francesca Tubito; Maira Pires; Paul Christos; Samantha Anderson; Semanti Mukherjee; Bailey Jordan; Stephanie V Blank; Thomas A Caputo; Ravi N Sharaf; Kenneth Offit; Kevin Holcomb; Steven Lipkin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Adrianne R Mallen; Claire C Conley; Mary K Townsend; Ali Wells; Bernadette M Boac; Sarah Todd; Anjalika Gandhi; Michelle Kuznicki; Bianca M Augusto; McKenzie McIntyre; Brooke L Fridley; Shelley S Tworoger; Robert M Wenham; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2019-11-24 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Panagiotis A Konstantinopoulos; Barbara Norquist; Christina Lacchetti; Deborah Armstrong; Rachel N Grisham; Paul J Goodfellow; Elise C Kohn; Douglas A Levine; Joyce F Liu; Karen H Lu; Dorinda Sparacio; Christina M Annunziata Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roni Nitecki; Haley A Moss; Catherine H Watson; Diana L Urbauer; Alexander Melamed; Karen H Lu; Steven M Lipkin; Kenneth Offit; Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Melissa K Frey Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-12-18 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Marilyn Huang; Tegan Hunter; Lydia A Fein; Johnny Galli; Sophia George; Matthew Schlumbrecht; Kelly McCarter; Abdulrahman K Sinno; Luiz P Guido; Andre Pinto Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Adrianne R Mallen; Claire C Conley; Lindsay Fuzzell; Dana Ketcher; Bianca M Augusto; McKenzie McIntyre; Laura V Barton; Mary K Townsend; Brooke L Fridley; Shelley S Tworoger; Robert M Wenham; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ky'Era V Actkins; Swetha Srinivasan; Lisa P Spees; Erin Turbitt; Caitlin G Allen; Megan C Roberts Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2021-08-02