ArticleJCO precision oncology2024
Optimizing Mainstreaming of Genetic Testing in Parallel With Ovarian and Endometrial Cancer Tumor Testing: How Do We Maximize Our Impact?
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAlthough germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for all patients with ovarian cancer (OC) and some patients with endometrial cancer (EC), uptake remains low with multiple barriers. Our center performs GT in parallel with somatic testing via a targeted sequencing assay (MSK-IMPACT) and initiates testing in oncology clinics (mainstreaming). We sought to optimize our GT processes for OC/EC.
methodsWe performed a quality improvement study to evaluate our GT processes within gynecologic surgery/medical oncology clinics. All eligible patients with newly diagnosed OC/EC were identified for GT and tracked in a REDCap database. Clinical data and GT rates were collected by the study team, who reviewed data for qualitative themes.
resultsFrom February 2023 to April 2023, we identified 116 patients with newly diagnosed OC (n = 57) and EC (n = 59). Patients were mostly White (62%); English was the preferred language for 90%. GT was performed in 52 (91%) patients with OC (seven external, 45 MSK-IMPACT) and in 44 (75%) patients with EC (three external, 41 MSK-IMPACT). GT results were available within 3 months for 100% and 95% of patients with OC and EC, respectively. Reasons for not undergoing GT included being missed by the clinical team where there was no record that GT was recommended, feeling overwhelmed, financial and privacy concerns, and language barriers. In qualitative review, we found that resources were concentrated in the initial visit with little follow-up to encourage GT at subsequent points of care.
conclusionA mainstreaming approach that couples somatic and germline GT resulted in high testing rates in OC/EC; however, barriers were identified. Processes that encourage GT at multiple care points and allow self-directed, multilingual digital consenting should be piloted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.