David A Barrington1, Macie L Champion1, Teresa K L Boitano1, Christen L Walters-Haygood2, Meagan B Farmer3, Ronald D Alvarez2, Jacob M Estes2, Charles A Leath4. 1. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, United States. 2. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, United States. 3. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Medical Genetics, United States. 4. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, United States. Electronic address: cleath@uabmc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Describe patient characteristics in African American (AA) women seen for gynecologic cancer related genetic counseling at a large southeastern comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: We reviewed an IRB approved, prospective observational cohort of patients from a Gynecologic Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic. Data evaluated included personal cancer history, family history, frequency of genetic testing, frequency/type of genetic mutations, and frequency of surgical intervention. Standard statistical statistics were utilized. RESULTS: 1227 patients were evaluated from 2003 to 2015, of which 95 (7.7%) were AA. Sixteen patients had a personal history of ovarian cancer. 21 women (22%) underwent genetic counseling only; subsequent genetic testing was not recommended based on absence of risk factors. Of the seventy-four AA patients in whom genetic testing was recommended, sixty-six (69.5%) completed testing. Of women tested, 37 (56%) had abnormal results. Eight and 14 patients had pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively. Two were found to have pathogenic PALB2 variants; one had a pathogenic ATM variant and one constitutional MLH1 epimutation case was identified. Eleven had BRCA variants of uncertain significance. Of the patients with abnormal testing, six of 22 women with pathogenic BRCA variants underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that in a region where AAs represent 27% of the population, the proportion of AA patients referred to a Gynecologic Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic remains low. Pathogenic variant and variant of uncertain significance rates were high in patients tested, likely representing a selection bias of high-risk patients. Endeavors should continue to identify minorities at risk for ovarian cancer and institute measures to provide thorough genetic counseling and testing.
OBJECTIVES: Describe patient characteristics in African American (AA) women seen for gynecologic cancer related genetic counseling at a large southeastern comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: We reviewed an IRB approved, prospective observational cohort of patients from a Gynecologic Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic. Data evaluated included personal cancer history, family history, frequency of genetic testing, frequency/type of genetic mutations, and frequency of surgical intervention. Standard statistical statistics were utilized. RESULTS: 1227 patients were evaluated from 2003 to 2015, of which 95 (7.7%) were AA. Sixteen patients had a personal history of ovarian cancer. 21 women (22%) underwent genetic counseling only; subsequent genetic testing was not recommended based on absence of risk factors. Of the seventy-four AA patients in whom genetic testing was recommended, sixty-six (69.5%) completed testing. Of women tested, 37 (56%) had abnormal results. Eight and 14 patients had pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively. Two were found to have pathogenic PALB2 variants; one had a pathogenic ATM variant and one constitutional MLH1 epimutation case was identified. Eleven had BRCA variants of uncertain significance. Of the patients with abnormal testing, six of 22 women with pathogenic BRCA variants underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that in a region where AAs represent 27% of the population, the proportion of AA patients referred to a Gynecologic Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic remains low. Pathogenic variant and variant of uncertain significance rates were high in patients tested, likely representing a selection bias of high-risk patients. Endeavors should continue to identify minorities at risk for ovarian cancer and institute measures to provide thorough genetic counseling and testing.
Authors: Tom Walsh; Silvia Casadei; Ming K Lee; Christopher C Pennil; Alex S Nord; Anne M Thornton; Wendy Roeb; Kathy J Agnew; Sunday M Stray; Anneka Wickramanayake; Barbara Norquist; Kathryn P Pennington; Rochelle L Garcia; Mary-Claire King; Elizabeth M Swisher Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Robin Lee; Mary Beattie; Beth Crawford; Julie Mak; Nicola Stewart; Miriam Komaromy; Laura Esserman; Lucille Shaw; Jane McLennan; Lori Strachowski; Judy Luce; John Ziegler Journal: Genet Test Date: 2005
Authors: Lindsey E Minion; Jill S Dolinsky; Dana M Chase; Charles L Dunlop; Elizabeth C Chao; Bradley J Monk Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Hayley S Thompson; Katarina Sussner; Marc D Schwartz; Tiffany Edwards; Andrea Forman; Lina Jandorf; Karen Brown; Dana H Bovbjerg; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir Journal: Genet Test Mol Biomarkers Date: 2012-10-11
Authors: Barbara M Norquist; Maria I Harrell; Mark F Brady; Tom Walsh; Ming K Lee; Suleyman Gulsuner; Sarah S Bernards; Silvia Casadei; Qian Yi; Robert A Burger; John K Chan; Susan A Davidson; Robert S Mannel; Paul A DiSilvestro; Heather A Lankes; Nilsa C Ramirez; Mary Claire King; Elizabeth M Swisher; Michael J Birrer Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Teresa K L Boitano; David A Barrington; Sadhvi Batra; Gerald McGwin; Taylor B Turner; Meagan B Farmer; Aimee M Brown; Michael J Straughn; Charles A Leath Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 5.482