Erica M Bednar1, Charlotte C Sun2, Bethsaida Camacho2, John Terrell3, Alyssa G Rieber4, Lois M Ramondetta2, Ralph S Freedman2, Karen H Lu2. 1. The Department of Clinical Cancer Genetics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; The Cancer Prevention and Control Platform, Moon Shots™ Program, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: embednar@mdanderson.org. 2. The Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 3. The Department of Quality Measurement and Engineering, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 4. The Department of General Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The universal genetic testing initiative (UGTI) is a quality improvement effort to increase rates of guideline-based genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) of patients with potentially hereditary cancers. The UGTI was disseminated to a county hospital gynecologic oncology clinic that serves a diverse, indigent patient population. METHODS: Using the Model for Improvement quality improvement framework, interventions including integrated GC, clinic tracking, assisted GC referrals, and provider education were tested over 26 months. A retrospective data review included patients with high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers (HGOC) and endometrial cancers (EC) diagnosed between 9/1/12-8/31/16. Statistical analyses were performed to describe the population and to evaluate rates of recommendation and use of immunohistochemistry tumor testing (IHC), GC, and GT. RESULTS: A cohort of 241 patients (57 HGOC, 184 EC) were included. At the conclusion of the study 84.2% of HGOC patients were referred for GC, 89.6% (43/48) completed GC, and 90.7% (39/43) completed GT. Of EC patients, 81.0% were recommended to have IHC and 62.4% (93/149) completed IHC. Patients with HGOC diagnosed during dissemination of UGTI were significantly more likely to receive a recommendation for GC (p = 0.02) and to complete GT (p = 0.03) than those diagnosed before UGTI. Patients with EC were significantly more likely to complete IHC if diagnosed after UGTI than those diagnosed prior to dissemination (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The UGTI can be adapted to increase use of guideline-based cancer genetics services in a diverse, indigent, gynecologic cancer patient population.
OBJECTIVE: The universal genetic testing initiative (UGTI) is a quality improvement effort to increase rates of guideline-based genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) of patients with potentially hereditary cancers. The UGTI was disseminated to a county hospital gynecologic oncology clinic that serves a diverse, indigent patient population. METHODS: Using the Model for Improvement quality improvement framework, interventions including integrated GC, clinic tracking, assisted GC referrals, and provider education were tested over 26 months. A retrospective data review included patients with high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers (HGOC) and endometrial cancers (EC) diagnosed between 9/1/12-8/31/16. Statistical analyses were performed to describe the population and to evaluate rates of recommendation and use of immunohistochemistry tumor testing (IHC), GC, and GT. RESULTS: A cohort of 241 patients (57 HGOC, 184 EC) were included. At the conclusion of the study 84.2% of HGOC patients were referred for GC, 89.6% (43/48) completed GC, and 90.7% (39/43) completed GT. Of ECpatients, 81.0% were recommended to have IHC and 62.4% (93/149) completed IHC. Patients with HGOC diagnosed during dissemination of UGTI were significantly more likely to receive a recommendation for GC (p = 0.02) and to complete GT (p = 0.03) than those diagnosed before UGTI. Patients with EC were significantly more likely to complete IHC if diagnosed after UGTI than those diagnosed prior to dissemination (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The UGTI can be adapted to increase use of guideline-based cancer genetics services in a diverse, indigent, gynecologic cancerpatient population.
Authors: Larissa A Meyer; Meaghan E Anderson; Robin A Lacour; Anuj Suri; Molly S Daniels; Diana L Urbauer; Graciela M Nogueras-Gonzalez; Kathleen M Schmeler; David M Gershenson; Karen H Lu Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Harvey A Risch; John R McLaughlin; David E C Cole; Barry Rosen; Linda Bradley; Isabel Fan; James Tang; Song Li; Shiyu Zhang; Patricia A Shaw; Steven A Narod Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-12-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Heather Hampel; Wendy Frankel; Jenny Panescu; Janet Lockman; Kaisa Sotamaa; Daniel Fix; Ilene Comeras; Jennifer La Jeunesse; Hidewaki Nakagawa; Judith A Westman; Thomas W Prior; Mark Clendenning; Pamela Penzone; Janet Lombardi; Patti Dunn; David E Cohn; Larry Copeland; Lynne Eaton; Jeffrey Fowler; George Lewandowski; Luis Vaccarello; Jeffrey Bell; Gary Reid; Albert de la Chapelle Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Kathryn Alsop; Sian Fereday; Cliff Meldrum; Anna deFazio; Catherine Emmanuel; Joshy George; Alexander Dobrovic; Michael J Birrer; Penelope M Webb; Colin Stewart; Michael Friedlander; Stephen Fox; David Bowtell; Gillian Mitchell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jessica Lee; Lindsay R Gubernick; Allison L Brodsky; Julia E Fehniger; Douglas A Levine; Deanna Gerber; Shabnam A Asgari; Anna Cantor; Jessica T Martineau; Ophira M Ginsburg; Julia A Smith; Bhavana Pothuri Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Brittany A L Batte; Amanda S Bruegl; Molly S Daniels; Kari L Ring; Katherine M Dempsey; Bojana Djordjevic; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Bryan M Fellman; Karen H Lu; Russell R Broaddus Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: C Bethan Powell; Ramey Littell; Elizabeth Hoodfar; Fiona Sinclair; Alice Pressman Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.437