OBJECTIVE: Analyze the impact of embedding genetic counseling services in gynecologic oncology on clinician referral and patient uptake of cancer genetics services. METHODS: Data were reviewed for a total of 737 newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer patients seen in gynecologic oncology at a large academic medical center including 401 from 11/2011-7/2014 (a time when cancer genetics services were provided as an off-site consultation). These data were compared to data from 8/2014-9/2016 (n=336), when the model changed to the genetics embedded model (GEM), incorporating a cancer genetic counselor on-site in the gynecologic oncology clinic. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference in proportion of patients referred pre- and post-GEM was observed (21% vs. 44%, p<0.0001). Pre-GEM, only 38% of referred patients were actually scheduled for genetics consultation and post-GEM 82% were scheduled (p<0.00001). The difference in the time from referral to scheduling in genetics was also statistically significant (3.92months pre-GEM vs. 0.79months post-GEM, p<0.00001) as was the time from referral to completion of genetics consultation (2.52months pre-GEM vs. 1.67months post-GEM, p<0.01). Twenty-five percent of patients referred post GEM were seen by the genetic counselor on the same day as the referral. CONCLUSIONS: Providing cancer genetics services on-site in gynecologic oncology and modifying the process by which patients are referred and scheduled significantly increases referral to cancer genetics and timely completion of genetics consultation, improving compliance with guideline-based care. Practice changes are critical given the impact of genetic test results on treatment and familial cancer risks.
OBJECTIVE: Analyze the impact of embedding genetic counseling services in gynecologic oncology on clinician referral and patient uptake of cancer genetics services. METHODS: Data were reviewed for a total of 737 newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancerpatients seen in gynecologic oncology at a large academic medical center including 401 from 11/2011-7/2014 (a time when cancer genetics services were provided as an off-site consultation). These data were compared to data from 8/2014-9/2016 (n=336), when the model changed to the genetics embedded model (GEM), incorporating a cancer genetic counselor on-site in the gynecologic oncology clinic. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference in proportion of patients referred pre- and post-GEM was observed (21% vs. 44%, p<0.0001). Pre-GEM, only 38% of referred patients were actually scheduled for genetics consultation and post-GEM 82% were scheduled (p<0.00001). The difference in the time from referral to scheduling in genetics was also statistically significant (3.92months pre-GEM vs. 0.79months post-GEM, p<0.00001) as was the time from referral to completion of genetics consultation (2.52months pre-GEM vs. 1.67months post-GEM, p<0.01). Twenty-five percent of patients referred post GEM were seen by the genetic counselor on the same day as the referral. CONCLUSIONS: Providing cancer genetics services on-site in gynecologic oncology and modifying the process by which patients are referred and scheduled significantly increases referral to cancer genetics and timely completion of genetics consultation, improving compliance with guideline-based care. Practice changes are critical given the impact of genetic test results on treatment and familial cancer risks.
Authors: Erica M Bednar; Charlotte C Sun; Bethsaida Camacho; John Terrell; Alyssa G Rieber; Lois M Ramondetta; Ralph S Freedman; Karen H Lu Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-12-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Nick Dragojlovic; Kennedy Borle; Nicola Kopac; Ursula Ellis; Patricia Birch; Shelin Adam; Jan M Friedman; Amy Nisselle; Alison M Elliott; Larry D Lynd Journal: Genet Med Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Evan J Walker; Dena Goldberg; Kelly M Gordon; Christina Pedley; Julia Carnevale; Pelin Cinar; Eric A Collisson; Margaret A Tempero; Andrew H Ko; Amie M Blanco; Mallika Dhawan Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-09-20
Authors: Jenny Lin; Ravi N Sharaf; Rachel Saganty; Danyal Ahsan; Julia Feit; Andrea Khoury; Hannah Bergeron; Eloise Chapman-Davis; Evelyn Cantillo; Kevin Holcomb; Stephanie V Blank; Ying Liu; Charlene Thomas; Paul J Christos; Drew N Wright; Steven Lipkin; Kenneth Offit; Melissa K Frey Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Jeanna M McCuaig; Susan Randall Armel; Melanie Care; Alexandra Volenik; Raymond H Kim; Kelly A Metcalfe Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Sukh Makhnoon; Jessica Corredor; Banu Arun; Donna Bell; Angela Yarbrough; John Andrew Livingston; Susan K Peterson; Michael Roth Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 1.757