Search

Background: In 2016 universal screening with mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry in all newly diagnosed endometrial carcinomas was introduced in Western Australia., Objective: To compare the prevalence of Lynch syndrome associated endometrial carcinomas between 2016 and 2019 with a historical control (2015). Additionally, to compare the number of cases appropriately referred for genetic assessment., Methods: A cross-sectional study of cases presented at the Western Australia gynecologic oncology tumor board was carried out. The primary outcome was the prevalence of Lynch syndrome associated endometrial carcinomas. A secondary outcome was the number of cases appropriately referred for genetic assessment. The following variables were extracted: date of birth; age at diagnosis; vital status; tumor mismatch repair protein expression status (retained or lost) and if lost, the specific mismatch repair protein deficiency; patients who were referred to a genetic clinic; and family history, if recorded. Data were collected from the clinical databases of the Familial Cancer Program at Genetic Services of Western Australia and WOMEN Center, to determine whether patients were appropriately referred for genetic evaluation and to ascertain the results of genetic testing., Results: Between 2016 and 2019, there were 1040 new endometrial carcinomas. Tumors of 883 (85%) patients underwent mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry compared with 117 of 199 patients (59%) in 2015 (χ 2 73.14, p<0.001). Of 883 tumors tested, 242 (27%) showed loss of mismatch repair protein expression. In 2015, 30 (26%) tumors of 117 tested showed loss of mismatch repair protein expression. During the 4 years of universal screening, 13 (1.5%) of 883 patients screened were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome compared with 2 (1.7%) of 117 in 2015 (Fisher's exact test 0.04, p=0.69). In 2015, 11 (37%) of 30 patients with loss of mismatch repair protein expression were not referred for genetic assessment compared with 36 (17%) of 209 patients in the universal screening group (χ 2 6.28, p=0.02). No cases of Lynch syndrome were diagnosed in patients aged over 70 years., Conclusions: Universal immunohistochemical screening did not increase the proportion of Lynch syndrome associated endometrial carcinomas identified, although the study was underpowered to detect small differences. There was an improvement in appropriate referrals for genetic assessment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PAC declares honoraria from Astra Zeneca and Seqirus unrelated to the submitted work. SGS declares advisory roles with Johnson and Johnson, and Baxter, and a teaching appointment with Medtronic., (© IGCS and ESGO 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To compare the germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation ( gBRCA ) status in women with high-grade serous tubo-ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma with and without serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinomas (serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-positive vs serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-negative)., Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was performed of patients in Western Australia diagnosed with high-grade serous tubo-ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma and referred for genetic counseling and gBRCA testing from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2017. Histopathology reports were reviewed to ascertain whether serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma was present. Personal or family gBRCA status, family history, age at diagnosis, mode of treatment (neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs primary surgery), and stage were also recorded., Results: A total of 269 women with high-grade serous tubo-ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma were referred for genetic counseling and testing. 114 patients were excluded because the serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma status was not assessable or because patients did not attend for genetic assessment. 155 patients (55 serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-positive and 100 serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-negative) underwent genetic testing. gBRCA mutations were found in 27.8% of serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-positive patients compared with 14.0% of serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-negative patients (p=0.094). Of those found to have a gBRCA mutation, 89.7% reported a positive personal or family history of BRCA -related cancers., Conclusions: The gBRCA mutation detection rate in serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-positive patients was nearly double that of serous tubal intra-epithelial carcinoma-negative patients. Factors such as a positive family history of BRCA -related cancers were seen at a higher proportion in the mutation positive women., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Patients with non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers should be referred for genetic testing because approximately 15% will carry an inherited mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 cancer susceptibility genes. However, referral rates for genetic testing remain low. For patients who carry a BRCA mutation, failure to refer for genetic testing results in missed opportunities for therapy and prevention of future cancers in the patient and at-risk relatives. In Western Australia between July 2013 and June 2015, 40.6% of patients with non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers discussed at a statewide gynecologic oncology tumor board were referred for genetic testing. Our objective was to investigate the proportion of patients with non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers in Western Australia referred for BRCA1/2 testing from July 2015 to December 2017, following the introduction of mainstreaming and tele-counseling. A secondary aim was to compare the uptake of genetic testing between different genetic counseling modalities., Methods: Retrospective case series. All patients with high-grade non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancers discussed at the weekly Western Australian gynecologic oncology tumor board meeting, between July 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017, and those referred for BRCA mutation testing, were ascertained., Results: A total of 343 women were eligible for referral; 63 patients were excluded, leaving 280 patients for analysis. 220/280 patients were referred for genetic testing (78.6%). There were no differences in uptake of genetic testing by mode of genetic counseling., Discussion: A significant increase in referrals of eligible patients for genetic testing was observed in 2015-2017 compared with 2013-2014. Although there were no differences in uptake of genetic testing by mode of counseling, mainstreaming and tele-counseling provide alternative options for patients that may lead to higher uptake of genetic testing., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The objectives of this work were to determine the proportion of eligible patients with ovarian cancer discussed at a gynecologic oncology tumor board who were referred for counseling and BRCA mutation testing; to compare referral rates before genetics attendance at the tumor board to referral rates after genetics attendance; and to ascertain the proportions of women with germline BRCA mutations., Materials and Methods: Eligible cases were identified from the minutes of the weekly Western Australian gynecologic oncology tumor board from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015.Patients with ovarian cancer who met eligibility criteria for genetics referral were identified and checked against the records of the genetic services database to ascertain whether a referral was received. Outcomes including attendance for counseling and results of mutation testing were analyzed., Results: Two hundred sixty-one patients were eligible for referral during the 24-month study period. One hundred six patients (40.6%) were referred for counseling and germline mutation testing. Of the eligible patients, 26.7% were referred in the 12 months before genetics attendance at the tumor board compared to 51.7% of the eligible patients in the 12 months after genetics attendance (P ≤ 0.0001). Ninety-seven patients were offered BRCA mutation testing, and 73 underwent testing with 65 results reported to date. Twenty-two patients (33.8 %) tested positive for a germline BRCA mutation., Conclusions: Patients with ovarian cancer had a high rate of BRCA mutations. Attendance of a genetics service at a tumor board was associated with an improved rate of referral of patients for genetic counseling and BRCA mutation testing.