PURPOSE: Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services. METHODS: We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]). CONCLUSIONS: Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.
PURPOSE: Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services. METHODS: We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]). CONCLUSIONS: Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.
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: Sommer Hayden; Sarah Mange; Debra Duquette; Nancie Petrucelli; Victoria M Raymond Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-01-16 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Stephanie Alimena; Lauren Scarpetti; Erica L Blouch; Linda Rodgers; Kristen Shannon; Marcela Del Carmen; Annekathryn Goodman; Whitfield B Growdon; Eric Eisenhauer; Rachel Clark Sisodia Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-05-23 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: Jeanna M McCuaig; Melanie Care; Sarah E Ferguson; Raymond H Kim; Tracy L Stockley; Kelly A Metcalfe Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Windy Olaya; Pamela Esquivel; Jan H Wong; John W Morgan; Adam Freeberg; Sharmila Roy-Chowdhury; Sharon S Lum Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Kelly E Ormond; Mercy Ygoña Laurino; Kristine Barlow-Stewart; Tina-Marié Wessels; Shelley Macaulay; Jehannine Austin; Anna Middleton Journal: Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 3.908
Authors: Sarah M Lima; Meaghan Nazareth; Karen M Schmitt; Andria Reyes; Elaine Fleck; Gary K Schwartz; Mary Beth Terry; Grace C Hillyer Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2022-10-13
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: Terri Patricia McVeigh; Karl J Sweeney; Donal J Brennan; Una M McVeigh; Simon Ward; Ann Strydom; Sheila Seal; Katherine Astbury; Paul Donnellan; Joanne Higgins; Maccon Keane; Michael J Kerin; Carmel Malone; Pauline McGough; Ray McLaughlin; Michael O'Leary; Margaret Rushe; Michael Kevin Barry; Geraldine MacGregor; Michael Sugrue; Ala Yousif; Dhafir Al-Azawi; Eileen Berkeley; Terence J Boyle; Elizabeth M Connolly; Carmel Nolan; Elaine Richardson; Claire Giffney; Samantha B Doyle; Sheila Broderick; William Boyd; Ruaidhri McVey; Thomas Walsh; Michael Farrell; David J Gallagher; Nazneen Rahman; Angela J George Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2022-08-27 Impact factor: 2.446
Authors: Tia L Kauffman; Yolanda K Prado; Ana A Reyes; Jamilyn M Zepp; Jennifer Sawyer; Larissa Lee White; Jessica Martucci; Suzanne Bianca Salas; Sarah Vertrees; Alan F Rope; Sheila Weinmann; Nora B Henrikson; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Jessica Ezzell Hunter Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-11-13
Authors: Julie O Culver; Yael Freiberg; Charité Ricker; Jacob G Comeaux; Emmeline Y Chang; Victoria Banerjee; Duveen Sturgeon; Ilana Solomon; Josie Kagey; Mariana G Dobre; Joseph Carey; Azadeh Carr; Stephanie Cho; Janice Lu; Irene M Kang; Ketan Patel; Alicia Terando; Jason C Ye; Ming Li; Caryn Lerman; Darcy Spicer; Maria Nelson Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-09-26 Impact factor: 4.339