Erica Manrriquez1, Jocelyn S Chapman1, Julie Mak1, Amie M Blanco1, Lee-May Chen2. 1. UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1600 Divisadero St., San Francisco, CA 94115, United States. 2. UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1600 Divisadero St., San Francisco, CA 94115, United States. Electronic address: lee-may.chen@ucsfmedctr.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize referral patterns for genetic counseling for women with ovarian cancer and hypothesized that differences in referral and testing rates are shaped by socioeconomic factors. METHODS: Patients were identified by pathology reports from August 2012 to January 2016 containing the words "serous" or "ovarian." Patient information was obtained via electronic medical record. Primary outcomes were placement of a genetics referral and completion of counseling. A secondary outcome was completion of genetic testing. RESULTS: We identified 246 women with a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ten were previously counseled and excluded. 53% of patients were referred for counseling with mean time from diagnosis to counseling of 4.6months. Age and family history were not associated with referral, however rates differed by race with 61% of Caucasian and 40%, 38% and 33% of Asian, Latina and Black women, respectively, referred (p=0.035). Overall, 36% of patients diagnosed underwent counseling, and 33% were tested. English language (p<0.0001), high-grade serous histology (p=<0.0001) and private or Medicare insurance (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with referral. CONCLUSION: We have not yet reached the Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendation for referral to genetics. Women of color and those with public insurance have lower referral rates. This disparity in care impacts cancer treatment options and prevents appropriate screening for other hereditary malignancies. To provide comprehensive oncology care, including genetic assessment, we recommend focusing on these barriers including improving outreach and interpreter services.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize referral patterns for genetic counseling for women with ovarian cancer and hypothesized that differences in referral and testing rates are shaped by socioeconomic factors. METHODS:Patients were identified by pathology reports from August 2012 to January 2016 containing the words "serous" or "ovarian." Patient information was obtained via electronic medical record. Primary outcomes were placement of a genetics referral and completion of counseling. A secondary outcome was completion of genetic testing. RESULTS: We identified 246 women with a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ten were previously counseled and excluded. 53% of patients were referred for counseling with mean time from diagnosis to counseling of 4.6months. Age and family history were not associated with referral, however rates differed by race with 61% of Caucasian and 40%, 38% and 33% of Asian, Latina and Black women, respectively, referred (p=0.035). Overall, 36% of patients diagnosed underwent counseling, and 33% were tested. English language (p<0.0001), high-grade serous histology (p=<0.0001) and private or Medicare insurance (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with referral. CONCLUSION: We have not yet reached the Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendation for referral to genetics. Women of color and those with public insurance have lower referral rates. This disparity in care impacts cancer treatment options and prevents appropriate screening for other hereditary malignancies. To provide comprehensive oncology care, including genetic assessment, we recommend focusing on these barriers including improving outreach and interpreter services.
Authors: Stacy W Gray; Rebecca A Ottesen; Madeline Currey; Mihaela Cristea; Janet Nikowitz; Susan Shehayeb; Vanessa Lozano; Julie Hom; Julie Kilburn; Lisa N Lopez; Sam Wing; Ernesto Sosa; Jenny Shen; Michael Morris; Bedros Dilsizian; Thomas Joseph; James Shen; Camille Adeimy; Tanyanika Phillips; Bahareh Bahadini; Joyce C Niland Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2022-09
Authors: Arnethea L Sutton; Jun He; Erin Tanner; Megan C Edmonds; Alesha Henderson; Alejandra Hurtado de Mendoza; Vanessa B Sheppard Journal: J Health Dispar Res Pract Date: 2019
Authors: Arnethea L Sutton; Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza; John Quillin; Lisa Rubinsak; Sarah M Temkin; Tamas Gal; Vanessa B Sheppard Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Leslie Riddle; Laura M Amendola; Marian J Gilmore; Claudia Guerra; Barbara Biesecker; Tia L Kauffman; Katherine Anderson; Alan F Rope; Michael C Leo; Mikaella Caruncho; Gail P Jarvik; Benjamin Wilfond; Katrina A B Goddard; Galen Joseph Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2020-12-23
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: Scott E Jordan; Samantha Spring; Priyanka Kamath; Matthew P Schlumbrecht; J Matthew Pearson; Abdulrahman K Sinno; Sophia H L George; Marilyn Huang Journal: Gynecol Oncol Rep Date: 2020-10-28
Authors: Joel E Pacyna; Gabriel Q Shaibi; Alex Lee; Jamie O Byrne; Idali Cuellar; Erica J Sutton; Valentina Hernandez; Noralane M Lindor; Davinder Singh; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 8.822